University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 1

Copyright 2015 Veridiana Chavarin

REFORMING PH.D. PROGRAMS TO ADDRESS THE CHANGING ACADEMIC LABOR
MARKET

By

Veridiana Chavarin

________________________________________________________________________________

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

December 2015

REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 2
DEDICATION
In memory of my father-in-law, John Cincy Williams, who always provided me with endless
unconditional love and generous support throughout my entire graduate education. I also dedicate
this in memory of my beautiful niece, Yasmen Vidales, who left this world exactly one year before I
finished this dissertation. Her fearless personality and passion for learning and writing motivated me
to embrace the challenges and to never give up finishing this dissertation.

REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Finishing this dissertation involved the support, time and effort of an entire community that
surrounded me. I would like to first give thanks to God for blessing me with the opportunity to
pursue my graduate studies and for providing me with the guidance, energy, wisdom, and personal
support needed to finish this dissertation. I would especially like to thank my parents, who with only
a primary education, immigrated to this country and understood that learning and pursuing a higher
education was the most valuable experience we could embrace. I thank them for all of their
sacrifices that always allowed me to focus on pursuing my dreams. A special thank you to my
fiancé, John Darren Williams, who provided me with endless support every day and who was more
than patient and loving throughout the past seven years I spent in graduate school. I could never
have accomplished this without his unconditional love and understanding. Thank you also to my
siblings Adriana Chavarin-Lopez, Pablo Chavarin and Miguel Chavarin, my brother-in-law Cesar
Lopez, my sisters-in-law Katherine Chavarin and Krista Williams, my nieces and nephews Lucia
Lopez, Camilo Lopez and Jacob Chavarin for always being my biggest supporters and surrounding
me with love and encouragement every day.
In addition, I would like to thank my dissertation chair, Dr. Adrianna Kezar, for her endless
support, timely feedback, and for always reminding me to stay on course. Without her expertise and
guidance, this would not have been possible. Thank you also to my dissertation committee
members, Dr. Sonja Daniels and Dr. Kristan Venegas, who were also two amazing professors in
many of my graduate courses and who provided me with feedback and reassurance throughout this
process. I would also like to thank everyone in my thematic group (Abi, Diane, Yun, Jeremy, Gene,
Robert, Veronica and Lilly), for all of their emotional and academic support throughout this process.
Thank you especially to my friend, colleague and writing buddy, Abi Ingleton, who pushed
me to even apply to this program in the first place and who accompanied me almost every evening to
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 4
write and think through many ideas for this dissertation. Thank you also to all of the waiters,
waitresses and managerial staff at the Denny’s on Overland in Culver City and The Loft in Korea
Town for allowing us to stay endless hours every evening to finish this dissertation.
Finally, I would like to thank all of the faculty and leaders who participated in this study and
who took the time to share their experiences and ideas with me to make this study possible.

REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication……………………………………………………………………………………….........2
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………………...3
List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………………….........8
List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………….…………...9
Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………………10
Chapter One: Introduction…………………………………………………………………………...11
Background………………………………………………………….…………….………..12
Problem Statement………………………………………………….………….…………...20
Research Question…………………………………………………..………….…………...21
Significance of the Study…………………….……………………………..…………........21
Conclusion…………………………………….……………………………..……………...23
Definition of Terms………………………………………………………………………………….24
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature……………………...………………………………………26
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………..…….26
Doctoral Education Reform……………….…………………………………..……………27
Preparing Future Faculty……………………………………………….….……………….30
Re-Envisioning the Ph.D. Project…..………………………..………………………...…..36
Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate………………………….…………………...…….....40
Toward a Responsive Ph.D. Project..………………………………………………………43
The Survey on Doctoral Education and Career Preparation………………………...…......46
Report of the MLA Task Force on Doctoral Study……………………...........……...........51
American Historical Association Career Diversity Project…………..…………………….53
Summary of Findings from Major Reform Efforts …………...…………………………...55
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 6
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………….……..……...56
Chapter Three: Methodology……………………………………………………………….………..58
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………............58
Methodological Approach: Grounded Theory…………………………………….………..59
Site Selection………………………………………………………………………..............62
Data Collection………………………………………………………………………...........70
Data Analysis……………………………………………………………………….............73
Limitations………………………………………………………………………….............75
Trustworthiness……………………………………………………………………………..76
Ethical Considerations………………………………………….…………………………...77
Chapter Four: Findings………………………………………………………………..……………..79
Introduction……………………………………………………….....……….…..…………79
Theme One……………………………………………………….…………........................81
Theme Two…………………………………………………………………….………...…93
Theme Three…………………………………………………………………..……….…....99
Theme Four…………………………………………………………………….…….…....108
Theme Five………………………………………………………………….......................119
Theme Six…………………………………………………………………….……...........125
Summary of Findings……………………………………………………………...……....130
Chapter Five: Discussion, Implications and Recommendations………………………………..….135
Introduction…………..……………………………………….………….……….….....…135
Summary of Findings…………..……………………………….…………………….…...136
Contributions to the Literature……………………….……….……………………..…….150
Implications for Practice…………………………….……….……………………………157
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 7
Future Research………………………………………..………………………….….……164
Conclusion………………………………………………..……………………….……….166
References...……………………………………………………………………………….………..169
Appendices……………………………………………………………………………………….....175
Appendix A: Summary of Reform Efforts……………………………………………........175
Appendix B: Initial Interview Protocol………………………………………………….....177
Appendix C: Revised Interview Protocol……………………………………………..........179
Appendix D: Initial Overview of Study……………………………………………………181
Appendix E: Revised Overview of Study………………………………………………….183
Appendix F: Initial Participant Solicitation………………………………………………...184
Appendix G: Revised Participant Solicitation………………………………………….…..185

REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 8
LIST OF TABLES
Table One: Ph.D. Student Career Goals……………………………..………………........................48
Table Two: Factors Negatively Influencing Decision to Pursue Academic Career…...…………….49
Table Three: Purposeful Sampling Criteria……………………………………………………….…64
Table Four: Demographics: Overview of 10 Participants…………………………………………...67
Table Five: Comparisons of Findings from Ph.D. Reform Efforts………………………………...141

REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 9
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure One: Strategies for Ph.D. Program Reform to Address Concerns with NTTF………34 & 137

REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 10
ABSTRACT
Institutions are heavily depending on the hiring of more full and part-time non-tenure track faculty
(NTTF). As a result, NTTF are now the new majority, with 3 out of every 4 Ph.D. graduates placed
in NTTF appointments. This study reviews previous graduate education reform studies, including
the Preparing Future Faculty program, Re-Envisioning the Ph.D., Carnegie Initiative on the
Doctorate, Toward A Responsive Ph.D., the Survey on Doctoral Education and Career Preparation
and more recently the MLA Report on the Task Force for Doctoral Study and the AHA Career
Diversity Project, and examines how the disciplinary societies within History and English are
responding to the shifts in the academic labor market with changes to graduate education. The
central research question asks how are disciplinary leaders in the fields that have had the labor
market shift dramatically from tenure track to non-tenure track (History and English) responding
with changes in terms of doctoral education? Using a grounded theory approach, seven disciplinary
leaders and three adjunct faculty are interviewed and the findings suggest six strategies for change
that leaders can consider in further examining whether these strategies actually result in addressing
the concerns with a growing NTTF. The findings have implications for both disciplinary and local
department leaders, but can benefit from future research, as the ideas presented by disciplinary
leaders have not necessarily been implemented.

REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 11
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
In just the past three years, the Chronicle of Higher Education, Inside Higher Ed and other
similar journals have published an increasing number of articles discussing the growing concerns
with the academic labor market, especially as they relate to Ph.D. graduates who face declining
tenure-track faculty (TTF) placements in the humanities. Issues related to the humanities crisis, the
poor working conditions of full and part-time non-tenure track faculty (PTNTTF), the changing
statistics amongst faculty staffing, and how these issues impact undergraduate and graduate
education are now openly discussed and reaching new audiences. As Leonard Cassuto (2012)
describes in his article titled The Multi-Track Ph.D., we have gone from a "humanities crisis" to a
new normal, as we learn to adjust to the new reality that a growing non-tenure track faculty (NTTF)
majority is here to stay.
Bousquet (2014) states that "since 2005, only two in five of those who graduated from
Emory with Ph.D.'s in English have landed tenure-track jobs." Cassuto (2012) further states that this
is happening during a time when Ph.D.’s in English spend over 9 years finishing their degrees and
Bok (2013) writes that graduate schools are currently the worst-administered programs in higher
education with an overproduction of Ph.D.’s, high attrition rates, and a misalignment between Ph.D.
student training and the reality of their placements. Today, despite the various updates about the
state of the academic job market and the condition of Ph.D. programs, increasing numbers of
students continue to apply to Ph.D. programs, and the majority of Ph.D. graduates continue to hold
onto dear hope for a tenure-track career.
The examples above are limited to individual observations, but news reports across the
country note similar experiences as the reality for far too many Ph.D. students; as the labor market
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 12
continues to shift from TTF to NTTF at 4-year research and teaching universities, more Ph.D.
graduates feel they have no options to consider but to temporarily pursue non-tenure track teaching
jobs for which they are not necessarily prepared or even encouraged to seek. In fact, for three out of
every four Ph.D. graduates, the "interim" NTTF appointment, will eventually become "permanent,"
constraining them into a career filled with contractual challenges, low-paid wages, and waning
prestige (Austin & Wulff, 2004; Kezar & Sam, 2010a; Schuster and Finkelstein, 2006; Walker,
Golde, Jones, Bueschel, Hutchings, 2008).
Understanding how the traditional structure of doctoral education contributes to the
misalignment between training and actual placement of Ph.D. students and knowing why institutions
continue to experience growth in NTTF appointments is critical to the development of this study.
The next sections, therefore, provide a brief overview of doctoral education, mainly the reasons why
doctoral education holds the traditional training structures for Ph.D. students, and the reasons for the
growth of NTTF overtime.
Background
Doctoral Education and Ph.D. Student Training
In 1861, Yale University granted the first doctorate in the US, but it was not until the opening
of Johns Hopkins University that research Ph.D. degrees in the arts and sciences and the support of
financial fellowships came about (Walker, Golde, Jones, Bueschel, and Hutchings, 2008). Inspired
by the German model of education, doctoral education in the US has since emphasized the
importance of scientific inquiry and has required faculty to engage in high productivity of scholarly
research to maintain their faculty status—hence the tenure process (Walker, Golde, Jones, Bueschel,
and Hutchings, 2008). While doctoral education, due to changes in the educational landscape, has
considered various types of reform, the traditional structures and central purpose of a Ph.D. degree,
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 13
such as training students towards tenure-track academic positions, remains the same (Walker, Golde,
Jones, Bueschel, and Hutchings, 2008).
As with any attempts towards change in educational organizations, doctoral programs have
possibly remained stagnant in their practices and structures due to the challenges that faculty and
administrators encounter when looking to change the cultural norms that have been in place for
extended periods of time. According to one of the reports for the Preparing Future Faculty program,
altering doctoral education is most challenging, as these changes may threaten the established order
of faculty and the purpose of the research, grants, and publications which secure and increase
prestige for faculty members, departments and institutions (Austin and Wulff, 2004; Golde and
Walker, 2006; Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, Sims and Denecke, 2003; Nyquist, 2002). These practices, which
have created a competitive and hierarchical culture within academia, lead faculty and administrators
to perceive non-traditional appointments, such as non-academic and NTTF, as having little value for
students (Austin and Wulff, 2004; Golde and Walker, 2006; Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, Sims and Denecke,
2003; Nyquist, 2002). As a result, doctoral programs insist on continuing to train Ph.D. students
towards TTF positions, focusing mostly on research skills, even though changes to the educational
landscape tell us that faculty of the future will likely also need skills in connecting with other
disciplines, understanding teaching and learning theories, utilizing technological advances in the
classroom, understanding and engaging in service and governance, translating their work for various
academic communities, working with diverse groups of students and understanding the central
purpose of higher education (Austin, 2003).
Cross & Goldenberg (2009) also point to other reasons why systematic changes related to
concerns with a growing NTTF are difficult, including implementation of academic policies and
who oversees faculty staffing decisions. They state that "…because the setting of academic policies
rarely receives higher-level attention, faculty decisions are often made without consistency or
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 14
attention to university-wide standards" (p. 42). Because decisions about the need to hire NTTF are
often decentralized and made at the department level, administrators are not necessarily aware of the
conditions of NTTF on their campus and systematic proposals for change, especially within doctoral
education, become complicated and not prioritized.
Despite the tendency of doctoral programs holding on to their traditional structures and
practices, several factors have called attention to the need for doctoral education reform. One of
these factors is the oversupply of Ph.D.’s. Walker, Golde, Jones, Bueschel, & Hutchings (2008)
report that between 1861 and 1900, only a total of 3,500 Ph.D.'s were awarded compared to an
average of 500 doctoral degrees awarded each year at the beginning of the 20th century. Between the
1960's and the beginning of the 21st century, doctoral degree production further increased from
10,000 to 40,000 per year (Walker, Golde, Jones, Bueschel & Hutchings, 2008). Today, over 43,000
degrees are awarded on an annual basis, and more than 375,000 students continue to register in
programs nationwide (Walker, Golde, Jones, Bueschel, and Hutchings, 2008). While not all of these
students pursue appointments in academia, a good number of graduates aim towards tenure-track
career paths and are trained for such appointments, but will likely work as NTTF or in non-academic
careers, as the number of TTF appointments become increasingly limited. Additional factors that
increase attention on doctoral education reform are growing demands from teaching assistantships,
rising doctoral student attrition rates, the importance of socialization in doctoral student training,
and—most important to the NTTF dilemma—the changes to the academic labor market (Austin and
Wulff, 2004).
Austin (2003) points to eight major forces transforming higher education that impacts the
academic labor market and highlights the importance of reforming how Ph.D. students develop the
skills necessary to be effective faculty members, be it a NTTF or TTF appointment. These forces
include public skepticism, fiscal constraints, rise of information technology, increasingly diverse
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 15
populations, new institutional competitors (such as for-profit institutions and online programs),
emphasis on learning outcomes, increasing postmodern knowledge (or cross-discipline/
interdisciplinary knowledge), and the increase in full and part time NTTF appointments (Austin,
2003). Austin (2003) further posits that as a result of these forces, the professoriate of the future will
likely be made up of either "complete scholars," or those faculty who have a full understanding of
their fields and engage in all forms of scholarship at different points in their career, or "differentiated
academics," faculty who will only work with specific types of academic work in their fields, such as
what we currently are experiencing with part-time faculty, and those who teach online or hybrid
courses.
Despite the gradual growth of these forces over time that point to the need for doctoral
education reform, most of the work on doctoral education has focused on the general challenges in
Ph.D. programs, such as time to degree, retention, socialization, placement in tenure positions and
mentoring. While some studies do address concerns with changes in the job market, they often limit
their recommendations to offering alternative career options beyond academia, and rarely develop
suggestions focused on how to address the growing number of placements in NTTF appointments.
Therefore, a significant problem in higher education that needs to be addressed, especially as the
growth in NTTF appointments seems to be here to stay, is the continual oversupply of Ph.D. students
who are not gaining tenure-track positions and who are not adequately trained or even familiar with
what a career as an NTTF entails. The next section discusses reasons for the gradual rise in NTTF
appointments.
Rise in Non-Tenure Track Faculty
While the major shift in the academic labor market occurred more recently, the increase in
NTTF appointments is not by any means a new concern (Kezar and Sam, 2010a). After World War
II, the Serviceman's Readjustment Act of 1944 (which granted financial support for returning U.S.
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 16
servicemen to pursue a vocational or college education), and the 1947 President's Commission on
Higher Education, increased the democratization of higher education, which gave rise to enrollments
(Kezar and Sam, 2010a). Because of their open access policies and their vocational training
programs, community colleges, in particular, experienced the greatest increase in their enrollment
that stretched far beyond the availability of resources, including the number of faculties available to
teach (Kezar & Sam, 2010a). As a result, community colleges began to hire an increasing number of
NTTF on a part-time basis to meet the high enrollment demands (Kezar & Sam, 2010a). This
practice continued through the 1990's, when yet another increase in the hiring of NTTF occurred,
this time at four-year institutions. Amongst the reasons why four-year universities hired a large
number of full-time NTTF, were: (a) the influx of nontraditional student enrollment, (b) an aging
faculty who did not retire as expected, (c) limited resources and reduction in federal and state
funding, and (d) a weakening public support system due to the declining quality of higher education
(Kezar & Sam, 2010a). Additionally, studies on NTTF that consider the reasons for the increase in
contingent faculty appointments point to the increasing pressure in academic capitalism, and the
growing demand for scholarly research (Baldwin & Chronister, 2001; Cross & Goldenberg, 2009;
Gappa, 2001; Kezar & Sam, 2010a, Kezar & Sam, 2010b). While these demands for NTTF occurred
across all institutional types and disciplines, most of the shifts from TTF to NTTF occurred mostly
in the humanities and social sciences (Golde, 2006; Golde & Dore, 2001; Pruitt-Logan & Gaff,
2004; Walker, 2004). Today, the option to hire NTTF (with their low wages, short-term contracts,
and lack of benefits) continues to offer a flexible, affordable and immediate "solution" to the
demands administrators face under severe budget restrictions and increased accountability measures.
As a result, NTTF continue to be the growing majority amongst faculty on US college campuses
(Kezar & Sam, 2010a; Schuster and Finkelstein, 2006).

REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 17
NTTFs and Doctoral Education Reform
Despite these historical trends, only within the last fifteen years has a growing body of
literature started acknowledging and formally defining the NTTF population. The literature defines
NTTF as full or part-time faculty who are not eligible for the tenure review process and recognizes
that they are an extremely heterogeneous population with varying labels and experiences, including
differences in titles, full and part-time appointments, working conditions, and disciplines and
institutions in which they work (Kezar and Sam, 2010a). Because of their heterogeneity, the general
challenges and implications their experiences have on higher education are complex and often
misunderstood (Kezar and Sam, 2010b). Fortunately, more recent literature is addressing this
complexity and suggests that future studies also consider this to further improve the existing values
and beliefs of NTTF, which, for example, often stereotypes NTTF as uncommitted or lacking
professional motivation (Kezar & Sam, 2010a). By understanding the complexity of this population
with an equity-minded lens (as opposed to a deficit-minded lens), we can more readily begin to
forecast how the presence of NTTF will specifically change our educational landscapes and
proactively consider how we can further improve the position in ways to maximize NTTF roles,
working conditions, and professional development. For example, Kezar and Sam (2010b) discuss
how different campuses identify NTTF as either professionals or laborers. They argue that because
NTTF are trained and can have a high level of commitment and motivation for their position, we can
further their contributions on campus, if we treat them more as "hybrid" professionals and
employees, versus only professional or laborer.
Especially in recent years, the literature on the topics on NTTF has been growing and is
continuously informing stakeholders about the effects NTTF have on specific areas within higher
education (Umbach, 2007; Kezar and Sam, 2010b). However, with the exception of the recent
reports conducted by the Modern Languages Association (MLA) and the American Historical
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 18
Association (AHA), most studies that examine how the shift in the labor market specifically affects
doctoral education typically do not directly address the NTTF population. The focus of these studies,
which will be further discussed in chapter two, tend to primarily discuss ways to improve the overall
challenges of doctoral education, including the misalignment between training and actual
placements, doctoral student retention, socialization, mentorship, time to degree, tenure
opportunities, alternative career options, relevance of the degree and admissions (Austin and Wulff,
2004). For example, in a study conducted by Golde and Dore (2001), the overall criticisms of
doctoral education published through the 1990's include issues related to an oversupply of Ph.D.’s,
overly specialized research training, the need to improve the quality of undergraduate education, and
the need to transition Ph.D.’s towards positions within the business, industry, government and non-
profit sectors. Studies also respond to challenges in doctoral education with innovative programs and
changes, including the Preparing Future Faculty (PFF) program, which addresses the misalignment
between doctoral training and academic job expectations (Austin and Wulff, 2004; Nyquist, 2002).
Other major reports on doctoral education reform are the Re-Envisioning the Ph.D., Carnegie
Initiative on the Doctorate (CID), Toward A Responsive Ph.D., Survey on Doctoral Education and
Career Preparation, and more recently the Report of the Modern Languages Association Task Force
on Doctoral Study in Modern Languages and Literature (Austin and Wulff, 2004; Golde and Walker,
2006; Modern Languages Association, 2004; Nyquist, 2002). Golde and Walker (2006) posit that
the changing conditions within disciplines, the job market, universities and student populations may
make current structures of doctoral education outdated and inefficient, if practices remain unchanged
and do not effectively meet the central purpose of obtaining a Ph.D. degree. While recent responses
to doctoral education reform are urging institutions to think about the future of the professoriate and
its implications for institutions, no studies currently exist that examine how changes in doctoral
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 19
education and training can help address the issues specifically related to a growing NTTF, which is
now the faculty majority at all types of institutions.
Already the effects of practices not being improved to address the shift in the labor market
from TTF to NTTF are emerging in doctoral programs. These results include an increasing
oversupply of Ph.D.’s that are not ready be effective academics in the 21st century and an aging
faculty who continue to mentor students towards traditional tenure-track positions that are not only
dwindling but no longer the only position that corresponds to the needs of universities and society as
a whole. With approximately fifty percent of Ph.D.’s leaving their programs early (Lovitts, 2001)
due to the misalignment between their career goals, satisfaction, and academic training, institutions
lose millions of dollars in fellowship and assistantship investments each year. A major assumption in
this study is, therefore, the belief that contributing to doctoral education reform may also play a
major role in not only improving the conditions and prestige of the NTTF position but also in
reducing the challenge doctoral education currently faces with regards to attrition.
Based on the existing significant efforts to reform doctoral education, possible changes to
improve NTTF training may include revisiting socialization efforts. Since the 1970's researchers
have found that socialization during graduate school is the first stage in the faculty career pipeline
(Austin, 2002; Bess, 1978; Golde and Dore, 2001; Tierney and Rhoads, 1994). If socialization
efforts continue to be designed only to train Ph.D.’s for traditional tenure-track positions, we not
only limit the prestige of the academic position to tenure-track faculty, but we fail in adequately
preparing students for the reality of their work. Another example is improving how we train faculty
mentors on how to best support students who end up pursuing NTTF appointments. Austin and
Wulff (2004) suggest that faculty mentors are not only responsible for socializing students towards
being an academic, but should also help students to explore their career options and help clarify any
conflicting messages they may receive in regards to their professional experiences and expectations
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 20
in academia. Considering ways to improve the working conditions of NTTF, examining strategies to
reduce the number of NTTF placements, and providing Ph.D. students with alternative career
options beyond academia, may lower the attrition rates of students who leave due to poor mentorship
relationships and a lack of interest or readiness in pursuing tenure-track positions.
In summary, examining how leaders can reform policies, practices and training within Ph.D.
programs to address the growing concerns of the new faculty majority can contribute to the
literature, solve a major problem in the misalignment between graduate student training and the
reality of their careers post-graduation, and help improve the working conditions of NTTF and in
turn may improve the attractiveness and value of the NTTF placements and other career options.
Problem Statement
Today, over 400 institutions have educated the majority of the world's top leaders who are
recipients of Ph.D. degrees (Walker, Golde, Jones, Bueschel, and Hutchings, 2008). Doctoral
education ensures the United States contributes to a global economy via its experts who produce
endless research in various disciplines, impact public policies, and train and teach current and future
generations (Walker, Golde, Jones, Bueschel, and Hutchings, 2008). With major changes happening
in higher education in the past fifteen years alone, including increasingly diverse populations of
students, technological classroom innovations, globalization, gloomy fiscal budgets, and an
increasing focus on learning outcomes and accountability, professors are called to higher
expectations in training to be able to survive the pressures and responsibilities of their roles (Austin,
2003). To further complicate matters, universities are now hiring more full and part-time NTTF,
which further challenge faculty to meet their own professional expectations, while meeting the
academic and social demands of students (Austin, 2003). In the midst of these challenges, a major
problem in higher education is that most Ph.D. programs, while acknowledging the job market shift
from TTF to NTTF, continue to train their students as they have traditionally been doing since the
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 21
inception of doctoral education, which no longer applies in today's academic landscape. As NTTF
appointments continue to rise and are now the majority amongst higher education institutions,
improving the policies, practices within doctoral education, as well as the alignment between
doctoral student training and the contextual reality of their potential positions may address issues
within doctoral education and help address the challenges associated with NTTF working conditions.
Research Question
The purpose of this qualitative study is, therefore, to consider how changes to policies, practices
and training within doctoral education can address the issues related to a growing NTTF population.
This would in turn suggest recommendations towards the improvements of doctoral education that
would not reduce the prestige of the degree, but instead would create valuable career options with
adequate training for Ph.D. students and improve the working conditions of NTTF placements. This
study specifically surveys disciplinary society leaders in two of the disciplines where we have seen
the most academic labor market shifts—English and History— and examines how they are
responding to the shifts towards NTTF through changes in doctoral education. The research question
for this study is:
1. How are disciplinary leaders in the fields that have had the labor market shift
dramatically from tenure track to non-tenure track (English and History) responding with
changes in terms of doctoral education and training?
Significance of the Study
As higher education faces a time of major and rapid changes, "the preparation of the faculty
of the future is one of the most significant responsibilities of the universities, requiring the best
efforts of faculty members and academic leaders" (Austin and Wulff, 2004, p. 9). Faculty are called
to be the experts as they simultaneously face and respond to the pressures of public mistrust,
increased accountability, fiscal budget cuts, increased involvement with financial development
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 22
efforts, technological advances in teaching and the transfer of knowledge, increases in diversity of
students, competition with for-profit institutions, and emphasis on learning outcomes (Austin &
Wulff, 2004; Walker, Golde, Jones, Bueschel, and Hutchings, 2008). From recent studies we know
what skills faculty will need to be successful in academia; what we do not know is how doctoral
education can change to best adjust to the fact that NTTF are here to stay as the new majority. This
gap in the literature has significant implications for higher education. First, as more graduate
students will likely take on full and part-time NTTF contracts at various types of institutions, most of
their current faculty mentors are not familiar with or never had to learn to navigate various types of
institutions or NTTF and non-academic positions and therefore continue to train students in
traditional approaches. Lacking awareness of the experience of NTTF will likely affect the
effectiveness of mentorship relationships, which is an important component of Ph.D. training and an
area that mostly impacts doctoral student retention (Lovitts, 2001). Second, the need to ensure Ph.D.
students gain the skill sets required not only being a professor in the 21st century, but being able to
advocate for the improvement of working conditions for NTTF is critical. If students are not able to
adapt their skillsets according to the position and institution they work in and advocate for
improvements in their working conditions, students will begin to miss further placement
opportunities and the working conditions for NTTF will grow worse overtime. Especially as more
universities focus on learning outcomes and acknowledge and gain an understanding of what skills
are needed to be an effective teacher, they will likely be concerned with whether or not NTTF's hold
the self-efficacy, set of skills and adequate working conditions needed to be an effective teacher.
Third, as universities continue to invest millions of dollars into Ph.D. education, which will result in
only a third of their students being placed in tenure positions, programs will likely appear to be
ineffective. Unless Ph.D. programs implement changes to further improve training and value careers
outside the tenure-track, programs will likely lose funding dollars and prestige. Related to this point,
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 23
is the fourth implication that disciplinary societies will need to advocate to further improve the
working conditions of NTTF or find ways to promote and value other career options. If the NTTF
position is not improved, and we continue to hire more NTTF than TTF, then students will lose
interest in pursuing a Ph.D. degree and admission numbers will decline, threatening Ph.D. programs
and even undergraduate programs in some disciplines, especially those who have experienced the
most labor market shifts to NTTF. Finally, implementing changes in doctoral education that support
career options beyond TTF appointments may likely improve attrition rates and time to degree,
which have historically been major concerns in doctoral education. According to Lovitts (2001)
approximately 50% of all doctoral students have consistently departed from their programs in the
past fifty years (Lovitts, 2001). Reasons why students chose to depart from their Ph.D. studies is
usually due to their realization that they do not wish to pursue tenure-track positions or fear they will
not be able to meet the expectations of tenure. If students learned about the variety of positions
available within academia and their programs offered the opportunity to train for a career as an
NTTF early in their doctoral program, it may likely increase the possibility of them persisting
through degree completion and will likely improve time to degree.
Conclusion
As we consider how we can better meet the demands of higher education in the 21st century,
examining programs and leaders who are thinking about changes to better train their Ph.D. students
towards careers as NTTF, is highly critical. In turn, changes to doctoral education to better align
policies, practices and student training to the varying professoriate career, can contribute to
improvements in the NTTF position and doctoral education overall.

REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 24
Definition of Terms
The following are definitions of the terminology used throughout this dissertation:

Non-tenured track faculty (NTTF) — full or part-time faculty who are not eligible for the tenure
review process and a highly heterogeneous population with varying labels and experiences,
including differences in titles, full and part-time appointments, working conditions, and disciplines
and institutions in which they work (Kezar and Sam, 2010a)

Tenure-Track Faculty (TTF) — include full-time faculty at four-year research or teaching
institutions who are eligible for tenure and who are permanent members of the faculty with full
voting rights.

Disciplinary Leaders— include leaders in major professional organizations, such as the Modern
Languages Association and the American Historical Association. Leaders typically include
individuals on the executive board or members who have led or participated as members of task
forces and committees on issues related to NTTF, faculty and graduate education concerns.

Local Leaders—includes administrators at the institutional and departments levels such as college
deans, chairs of departments and directors of graduate studies.

Graduate Education Reform or Doctoral Education Reform— refers to significant systematic efforts
to change Ph.D. programs, including efforts to change the curriculum, assistantship models,
mentorship, program practices and the policies that govern doctoral education.
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 25
Alt-Ac Careers— Any placements in the public and private sectors, such as positions at non-profit
organizations, government agencies, corporations, or think-tanks, that extend beyond the tenure and
tenure-track placements or other academic positions.

REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 26
CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

This chapter provides a synthesized review of the literature on doctoral education reform,
particularly the efforts that inform the issue of labor market shifts in academia from TTF to NTTF.
As discussed in chapter one, a gap in the literature exists that explicitly informs the topic of NTTF as
it pertains to doctoral education reform. Because existing literature on the subject is slim, the first
goal of this chapter is to consider how the overall findings from previous reform efforts can serve to
better understand and develop the research question. This includes the reasons why the study
assumes the labor market shifts from tenure track to non-tenure track will dramatically impact Ph.D.
programs to the point that doctoral education reform is critical to addressing some of the concerns
related to NTTF.
The second goal is to guide the grounded theory methodological approach used in this study;
comparing the central findings and gaps from previous doctoral reform studies as they relate to
NTTF will help to provide an initial understanding of the possible areas to consider in this study. In
other words, while the methodological approach to this study is such that the research question will
ultimately be answered by the data itself, examining the literature serves to provide an initial
direction for this study so that it can further contribute to the literature and fill some of the existing
gaps in the research regarding the NTTF phenomenon and doctoral education.
To achieve these goals, this chapter provides a general synthesis of the literature on some of
the major doctoral education reform efforts that include some reference to the academic labor market
shifts. The reform efforts reviewed in this chapter include Preparing Future Faculty, the Carnegie
Initiative on the Doctorate, Re-Envisioning the Ph.D., Toward a Responsive Ph.D., the Survey on
Doctoral Education and Career Preparation, the Report of the MLA Task Force on Doctoral Study in
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 27
Modern Languages and Literature and the Career Diversity project led by the American Historical
Association (AHA). Finally, a summary of the areas the literature points to as essential to the
understanding of doctoral education reform in relation to training of future faculty is highlighted and
discussed. While these areas may not directly focus on NTTF, the overall concepts help to
understand where the current literature stands with regards to Ph.D. student training and academic
placements and how this study might contribute additional knowledge and new directions for both
the NTTF and doctoral education topics.
Before presenting a review of each of the doctoral reform studies, the next section introduces
the purpose of doctoral education reform and discusses the challenges in assessing doctoral
programs that may explain why most of the literature lack any mention of assessment or evaluation
procedures.
Doctoral Education Reform
For years, doctoral programs have functioned according to traditional models (Walker,
2004). While many administrators, faculty and students continue to question the purpose of a Ph.D.
degree, only recently have scholars begun to examine whether or not the current structures of
doctoral programs continue to be adequate in supporting the purpose of a Ph.D. in a changing
landscape (Walker, 2004). Major doctoral education reform efforts, however, are rare and complex
mostly due to the autonomous nature of Ph.D. programs. Walker (2004) precisely explains the
primary reason for the autonomy of doctoral programs is because they function under a distinctive
culture, meaning most programs are decentralized, less regulated than undergraduate programs,
structured according to their disciplines, and distinguish themselves by the work of their faculty and
students. The distinctive nature of Ph.D. programs, therefore, makes it too expensive and
multifaceted to design any generalizable studies for a holistic reform of doctoral education (Walker,
2004). Understanding the sophistication of reform in doctoral education is then critical to this
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 28
dissertation. This understanding points to the significant barriers and complexities to consider when
looking to restructure the policies, practices and training within Ph.D. programs to be more aligned
with the current academic job market and to help advocate further improvements to the working
conditions and prestige of NTTF.
Additionally, doctoral education, especially in the United States, has historically been highly
regarded on a global spectrum (Walker, 2004). Because reliance on the current prestige of Ph.D.
programs is high, the need to evolve along with the changing market and educational landscape is
not prioritized (Walker, 2004). Within the last decade, however, doctoral education has gained much
attention, especially with regards to the needs for reform. Some changes, such as an increasingly
diverse student population, reductions in educational funding, and increase in part-time non-tenure-
track faculty (PTNTTF), have begun to greatly impact doctoral programs in terms of its purpose and
the resources available to support its students (Austin, 2003). Reviewing recent literature on how the
changing professoriate is impacting higher education is important in not only being able to justify
the need for doctoral education reform but in determining the areas that need further investigation
when considering changes to graduate education that address the concerns with a growing NTTF.
Part of the challenge with reform in doctoral education is also related to the lack of national
research or decided upon criteria for review and assessments. Unfortunately, due to the complex
nature of Ph.D. programs, assessments at the doctoral-level are often informal and sometimes
unreliable. Consequently, a great need exists for more formal, evidence-based assessment
approaches in doctoral education (Golde, Jones, Bueschel, and Walker, 2006, p. 53). For example,
doctoral education lacks quantitative assessments completed over time mostly because these types of
studies are difficult to accomplish, as doctoral students, especially in the humanities, can take up to
12 years to complete their degrees (Golde, Jones, Bueschel, and Walker, 2006). Because of changes
to requirements, staff and faculty over the years, pointing out the causality of outcomes is difficult
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 29
(Golde, Jones, Bueschel, and Walker, 2006). Also, the numbers of students within a single Ph.D.
program tend to be low, creating statistical challenges and making the attainment of meaningful data
analysis more difficult due to the variation in the results (Golde, Jones, Bueschel, and Walker,
2006). Many departments and schools may also not have statistical data readily available (such as
attrition and graduation rates), despite more programs starting the practice of collecting such
information (Golde, Jones, Bueschel, and Walker, 2006). Perhaps the only assessments conducted
mostly within doctoral programs are those related to career placement, as these are critical to the
rankings and funding of doctoral programs (Golde, Jones, Bueschel, and Walker, 2006). Most
programs, however, do not have a systematic approach to collect such data and often find it difficult
to track their graduates beyond a few years after graduation (Golde, Jones, Bueschel, and Walker,
2006). This is a major problem, especially now that the majority of students pursues temporary
NTTF appointments and may not land tenure-track appointments until much later in their careers, if
at all. Because it can take students years before they attain tenure-track positions, current placement
assessments are difficult to analyze and provide meaningless information about program
effectiveness as it relates to placement (Golde, Jones, Bueschel, and Walker, 2006). Most
importantly, and perhaps mostly related to this study is the decentralization of doctoral education; as
decision making about the training of Ph.D. students continues to be highly decentralized and
focused on departments, proposals for more systematic changes to happen are lacking or not
prioritized (Gross & Goldenberg, 2009).
The following sections aim to examine the literature on recent reform efforts to better
understand how institutions might respond to the changes in the academic job market. While the
doctoral reform efforts presented here are major studies that focus on a multitude of areas within
doctoral education that need improvement, for purposes of this study, the next sections will only
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 30
highlight the parts of these reform efforts which mostly inform the changes in the academic job
market from TTF to NTTF.
Preparing Future Faculty
Previous studies on new faculty highlight the continual need for improved graduate
preparation, including having clear expectations within academia, providing flexible career
information, increasing pedagogical training and interdisciplinary approaches, and improving
communication (Golde and Dore 2001; Lovitts 2001; National Association of Graduate and
Professional Students, 2001; Nerad & Cerney, 2000; Nyquist, Austin, Sprague, and Wulff, 2001;
Rice, Sorcinelli & Austin, 2000; Smith & Pedersen-Gallegos, 2001; Socinellu, 2001; Trower, Austin
& Sorcinelli, 2001). These needs within doctoral education are addressed in the Preparing Future
Faculty (PFF) program, which began in the early 1990's with the aim of improving the vision for
doctoral student training so that students are better prepared to take on the variety of academic
appointments beyond TTF positions (Pruitt-Logan & Gaff, 2004). The program recognizes that the
movement towards increasing research efforts in the US after WWII continues to make research the
primary focus within doctoral training today (Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, Sims and Denecke, 2003).
Consequently, most doctoral students are primarily trained to pursue TTF appointments, which are
increasingly becoming limited opportunities when compared to other academic appointments, such
as NTTF (Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, Sims and Denecke, 2003). According to Hoffer, et al. (2001) and
Berger, Kirschstein, and Rowe (2001), only half of all Ph.D. graduates pursue careers in academia,
and only one-third of those graduates end up in full-time, tenure-track positions at research
universities. Because the majority of Ph.D. graduates train for TTF positions, but mostly work in
NTTF positions, the PPF program aims to improve the effectiveness of doctoral student
training towards academic appointments (Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, Sims and Denecke, 2003).
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 31
Since 1993, the PFF program has gone through various phases that have further improved the
program over time. As a result, the PFF program is now recognized as one of the most efficient and
consistent programs that aim to improve doctoral education overall (Pruitt-Logan & Gaff, 2004).
The following sections will highlight areas of PFF that are most critical to the topic of this
dissertation and which help to highlight the areas where gaps continue to exist and need further
examination
Areas Related to NTTF
While the overall PFF program works with different populations and addresses several issues
within doctoral education that may not necessarily relate to this dissertation, review of the PFF
program is of particular importance when considering reforming graduate education to address
concerns with a growing NTTF for three reasons. First, and similar to the goals of this dissertation,
the PFF program is one of the few reform initiatives that focus its primary objective on improving
the professional development of Ph.D. students who pursue an academic career (Pruitt-Logan &
Gaff, 2004). Most reform efforts in doctoral education that address the challenges of the academic
market tend to focus on providing Ph.D. students with options outside of academia, and encourage
students to change their career paths. PFF, however, aims to create a reformed pipeline to meet the
needs of a changing professoriate by better aligning academic training at the doctoral level (Pruitt-
Logan & Gaff, 2004). For example, a primary assumption of the PFF program is its recognition that
a significant gap exists between the current training of doctoral students and the new demands of the
professoriate (Pruitt-Logan & Gaff, 2004). Consequently, the overall structure of the PFF program
revolves around three major areas—training, teaching and service—and exposes students to
increasingly varied and complex opportunities in these three major areas within departments,
university-wide efforts and the disciplines (Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, Sims and Denecke, 2003). The PFF
program is then intentionally implemented throughout the doctoral student experience by carefully
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 32
integrating it into an already existing doctoral program structure (Pruitt-Logan & Gaff, 2004). In
doing so, PFF avoids inconsistencies and substantial modifications, and in turn preserves the
integrity and prestige of doctoral education, which is one of the greatest challenges for most reform
efforts (Pruitt-Logan & Gaff, 2004).
Second, the PFF program further informs this dissertation in that it serves to identify the best
possible sample population for this study. For example, phase four of the PFF effort, funded via The
Atlantic Philanthropies, aimed to develop model PFF programs in the humanities and social sciences
and partnered with six disciplinary societies, including the American Historical Association,
American Political Science Association, American Psychological Association, American
Sociological Association, National Communication Association, and National Council of Teachers
of English (Ferren, Gaff, and Clayton-Pederson, 2002; Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, Sims, & Denecke, 2003;
Pruitt-Logan & Gaff, 2004). Among the reasons why this phase partnered with disciplinary societies,
versus leaders at the campus or departmental level, are because disciplinary leaders create consistent
and constant visibility for the program to gain greater faculty participation (Ferren, Gaff, and
Clayton-Pederson, 2002; Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, Sims, & Denecke, 2003; Pruitt-Logan & Gaff, 2004).
Additionally, disciplinary societies participating in PFF programs recognized the need for them to do
more than just support research and encourage discourse on issues about faculty preparation in their
fields (Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, Sims, & Denecke, 2003). The disciplinary societies were also able to
provide better incentives for participation, such as awarding matching grants to departments wishing
to establish a PFF program, and had the capacity to encourage the continuation of PFF efforts at
national meetings and conferences, provide technical support and widely distribute information
about the program (Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, Sims, & Denecke, 2003). According to Gaff, Pruitt-Logan,
Sims and Denecke (2003), partnering with leaders of disciplinary societies also "…creates synergy
with other national agendas of the societies, such as efforts to diversify the faculty, improve the
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 33
teaching of new faculty, encourage social and community engagement, and explore the scholarship
of teaching and learning" (p.14). While the approach to the PPF study is different than the approach
used in this dissertation, phase four of the PFF program shows that selecting disciplinary leaders as a
sample may be best when looking for more general, forward-thinking ideas for reform.
Finally, phase four also points to the humanities and social sciences as the disciplines with the
greatest need for support primarily because these are the disciplines with the largest percentages of
Ph.D. graduates who pursue careers in academia (Pruitt-Logan & Gaff, 2004); while an average of
75% of Ph.D. graduates in the humanities pursue academic careers, only 25% of doctoral graduates
in chemistry pursue careers in academia (Pruitt-Logan & Gaff, 2004). For this reason, an increase in
NTTF appointments would have greater consequences for students in the humanities than those
students in the sciences, who rarely pursue academic positions.
Outcomes Related to NTTF
Today, the PFF is a nationwide program with over 23 programs in 44 departments with
approximately 4000 participants (Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, Sims, & Denecke, 2003; Pruitt-Logan & Gaff,
2004). Assessments of the program have been conducted and point to success in the areas of
developing teaching expertise, clearer expectations of faculty roles and activities, knowledge of
various types of teaching positions at various institutions, increased mentor experiences, expanded
networks, improved self-confidence and empowerment of students entering the job market (Gaff,
Pruitt-Logan, Sims, & Denecke, 2003; Pruitt-Logan & Gaff, 2004).
While many components of the PFF program contributed to such growth, three elements of
PFF specifically inform how doctoral reform efforts could potentially help support the labor market
shift towards NTTF. These include (a) providing Ph.D. students with increasingly autonomous
assistantships, (b) increasing partnerships with colleagues within and external to their programs, and
(c) increasing the number of mentors with who students work (Pruitt-Logan & Gaff, 2004).
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 34
The first two findings have to do with how PFF programs work with partner institutions to
expose students to a wide array of professional opportunities, including working with different types
of institutions, such as public and/or private universities, liberal colleges and/or community colleges,
allowing students the opportunity to explore their options and find the best match for their career in
academia (Pruitt-Logan & Gaff, 2004). This would include not only service and mentorship
opportunities with faculty at different educational establishments but also increasingly complex and
autonomous teaching assistantships at other institutions to broaden student preparation in teaching
(Pruitt-Logan & Gaff, 2004). Perhaps the most important component of the PFF models is the
"cluster," or the aim to increase collaboration between institutions that employ and educate Ph.D.’s
(Pruitt-Logan & Gaff, 2004). Various decisions are made within the cluster partnerships, including
deciding the skill set and specializations faculty will need, finding ways to increase student
opportunities across multiple institutional settings, and furthering the understanding of ways in
which the professoriate is changing amongst the various institutional types (Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, Sims
and Denecke, 2003; Pruitt-Logan & Gaff, 2004).
The third finding relates to how PFF programs place importance on the breadth and depth of
their mentoring systems. The program aims to increase the number of mentors students have so that
students work with several faculty who will in turn support them in the efforts of research and
teaching (Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, Sims and Denecke, 2003; Pruitt-Logan & Gaff, 2004). These
mentorships can occur within and outside of the discipline, which would help to equip students with
the various curricular and pedagogical skill sets needed in the classrooms today. Additional
components to the PFF program include offering courses in pedagogy, diversity, curriculum design,
and assessment, providing options for certificate programs in pedagogy and/or teaching, and
implementing workshops and student activities focused on career options, service, and teaching, all
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 35
of which could help to improve the training of students towards NTTF appointments (Gaff, Pruitt-
Logan, Sims and Denecke, 2003; Pruitt-Logan & Gaff, 2004).
According to Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, Sims and Denecke (2003) a major challenge that PFF faces
is dealing with the resistance to change that comes from the traditional order and culture within
long-standing Ph.D. programs. In addition to culture and traditional structures, doctoral programs
also operate within a "prestige economy", meaning that faculty aim for the most reputable research
grants, awards and publications to increase not only their own professional reputation but the
program's prestige (Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, Sims and Denecke, 2003). Faculty within doctoral programs
also have strong professional identities and have revolved their lives around traditional roles and
responsibilities to which any proposed change is threatening (Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, Sims and Denecke,
2003). As a result, PFF efforts face much resistance. First, there is concern that PFF will distract
students from traditional training paths, such as research and publication (Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, Sims
and Denecke, 2003). Also faculty, because they function in a prestige economy, may not find
experiences and partnerships with different institutions, such as a community college, worth their
time or even valuable to students (Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, Sims and Denecke, 2003). Partner institutions
may also feel skeptical about the value of their time and participation and may be resistant to
working with other institutions (Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, Sims and Denecke, 2003).
Other challenges include increased time to degree, time management for additional program
requirements, such as travel, extra course loads and activities, the sense that the program distracts
students from the more traditional training approaches, and the complexity of working with other
institutions (Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, Sims and Denecke, 2003). Some recommendations for solutions to
these challenges include having programs take on a more flexible structure with regards to the
scheduling of PFF activities, establishing more collective responsibility for doctoral education,
clearly articulating benefits of PFF and having more administrative support for such programs (Gaff,
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 36
Pruitt-Logan, Sims and Denecke, 2003). Having greater participation and input from disciplinary
societies and department clusters to linking PFF programs to other doctoral reform initiatives is also
critical (Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, Sims and Denecke, 2003).
While the PFF program aims to improve the existing inconsistencies in training and does not
necessarily address reform with regards to the particular needs of a growing NTTF, it does, point to
critical areas to consider in this dissertation. First, the study shows how looking to disciplinary
societies within specific disciplines can result in more forward-thinking ideas and can reduce the
complexity of looking at doctoral education as a whole. Additionally, knowing that partnerships,
mentorships, and assistantships appear to have successfully improved the alignment of doctoral
student training for academic positions in some programs may indicate the need to examine these
areas when collecting and analyzing the data for this dissertation. Finally, understanding the culture
of faculty caused barriers to PFF reform efforts points to the need to examine if and how this might
also impact reform efforts that specifically address the labor market shift towards NTTF.
Re-Envisioning the Ph.D.
Motivated by the assumption that social, cultural and economic forces continuously impact
the educational landscape, the Re-Envisioning the Ph.D. project was initiated in 1998 and also sets
its primary purpose in better preparing students for societal demands and the reality of their work
(Nyquist, Woodford, and Rogers, 2004). Doctoral students are of particular interest to sectors within
and outside of academia, mostly due to their research and problem-solving skills that are essential
and desired but lacking, in many undergraduates (Nyquist, Woodford, and Rogers, 2004). The Re-
Envisioning Ph.D. project, therefore, identifies a community of constituents who prepare, influence,
fund, and hire doctoral students; these stakeholders include faculty, research and liberal arts colleges
and universities, business and industry sectors, government leaders, accreditation agencies,
disciplinary societies, educational associations, K-12 education, foundations and non-profit
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 37
organizations (Nyquist, Woodford, and Rogers, 2004). The main purpose of this project is to have
an open and ongoing dialogue on doctoral education reform and have a central forum to share
innovative ideas and strategies with doctoral education stakeholders (Nyquist, Woodford, and
Rogers, 2004).
Areas Related to NTTF
While the study proposes many outcomes and recommendations with regards to the
improvement of doctoral education, of particular importance to the growing NTTF population is the
finding of myths, or what the authors define as unexamined assumptions that create misconceptions
and inhibit the potential of doctoral programs (Nyquist, Woodford, and Rogers, 2004). Re-
Envisioning the Ph.D. project, therefore, aims to bring stakeholders together and provide them with
the information needed so that they feel empowered to replace these myths with truths to unravel the
full potential of doctoral programs and propose plans for reform (Nyquist, Woodford, and Rogers,
2004). This proves useful in considering redefining the purpose and vision of Ph.D. education.
The Re-Envisioning the Ph.D. project interviewed more than 365 producers and consumers
of the Ph.D. and identified patterns in the areas of concern within doctoral education (Borkowski,
2006). Three myths are discussed here that relate strictly to the problem of the misalignment
between the training of Ph.D.’s and the reality of their work. The first myth is the belief that research
institutions are exclusively responsible for shaping the models for the preparation of future faculty,
which must involve attaining a Ph.D. and following in the traditions of their faculty mentors
(Nyquist, Woodford, and Rogers, 2004). The project discounted this myth by presenting the
differences in the roles and expectations of faculty across institution types, as each institution has
variation in its mission, practices and priorities (Nyquist, Woodford, and Rogers, 2004).
Additionally, the training of students cannot come from research institutions alone, as each hiring
institution or organization varies. Here the importance of partnerships with various stakeholders is
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 38
critical to increasing the understanding of expectations in the variety of roles, and in turn be able to
create a robust educational experience to help Ph.D.’s thrive (Nyquist, Woodford, and Rogers,
2004). The second myth is the belief that the only valuable part of doctoral education is research
(Nyquist, Woodford, and Rogers, 2004). Boyer (1990) speaks against this myth best, when he states
that
“ American higher education is imaginative and creative enough to support and reward not
only those scholars uniquely gifted in research but also those who excel in the integrations
and application of knowledge, as well as those especially adept in the scholarship of
teaching. Such a mosaic of talent, if acknowledged, would bring renewed vitality to higher
learning and the nation” (p. 27)
Preparing future faculty requires doctoral students to gain skills that go beyond the walls of their
research activities. Efforts to create more interdisciplinary opportunities that bridge the worlds of
research, service, and teaching are critical to the success of our doctoral students. The Re-
Envisioning the Ph.D. program, therefore, provides an extensive bibliography containing the
literature on teaching and service that furthers the understandings of doctoral students as they
prepare for careers in academia (Nyquist, Woodford, and Rogers, 2004). The bibliography includes
recent articles, books, reports and conference proceedings on teaching and service (Nyquist,
Woodford, and Rogers, 2004). In addition, a reference section for Ph.D.'s is available which
includes materials on teaching, syllabi development, course portfolios, evaluations, assessments,
teaching styles and learning theories and models (Nyquist, Woodford, and Rogers, 2004).
The third myth states that faculty mentors always know what is best for their graduate mentees in
regards to career choices and placement in academia (Nyquist, Woodford, and Rogers, 2004). The
Re-Envisioning the Ph.D. project unravels this myth by stating that the demographics of Ph.D.
students have dramatically changed over time (Nyquist, Woodford, and Rogers, 2004). Today more
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 39
women, part-time students, and underrepresented minorities enroll in Ph.D. programs than ever
before (Nyquist, Woodford, and Rogers, 2004). Students also come from a variety of academic
backgrounds, some with even multiple graduate degrees. As a result, more students aim to pursue a
variety of career goals outside of academia than in previous years. Beyond the personal career
choices of students, the reality of the job market in academia results in more students pursuing an
NTTF appointment than a TTF appointment and faculty usually struggle to understand what these
positions expect and what skills they require. As a result, faculty continue to train their students
using older models and students continue to be less prepared and less marketable for the variety of
positions available. The Re-Envisioning the Ph.D. project, therefore, promotes the different
innovations identified by other studies, such as PPF, and increases the career explorations and
information that doctoral students and faculty mentors can use to prepare better for the changes in
the market and the diversity amongst academic positions (Nyquist, Woodford, and Rogers, 2004).
Outcomes Related to NTTF
Amongst the results from the Re-Envisioning the Ph.D. project are first, the creation of a
website that serves as a central place to disseminate the most current information and resources for
those stakeholders who work, hire, fund or participate in doctoral education (Nyquist, Woodford,
and Rogers, 2004). Second, the publication and dissemination of written reports has contributed to a
national dialogue on doctoral education (Nyquist, Woodford, and Rogers, 2004). These reports are
available on the website, are published in other publications, such as The Chronicle of Higher
Education and Change, and have been presented at national conferences. Third, the outcomes of this
project have initiated other studies discussed later in this chapter, including The Carnegie Initiative
on the Doctorate and the Responsive Ph.D. (Nyquist, Woodford, and Rogers, 2004).
The recommendations which best inform this study include (a) increasing the parameters by
which faculty examine career options for Ph.D.’s, (b) improving mentorships to better serve an
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 40
increasingly diverse educational landscape, (c) developing assistantships in such a way that exposes
Ph.D.’s to increasing teaching responsibility, (d) implementing a culture of assessment and
evaluation by encouraging multiple opportunities for feedback, (e) improving the alignment
between program and institution mission statements and practices, (f) increasing communication
related to the expectations of competency for the various faculty roles, (g) encouraging Ph.D.
students to be more intentional in seeking out the resources, information, and mentorships needed to
succeed in their chosen career pathway, and (h) creating and/or improving partnerships between
stakeholders of doctoral education (Nyquist, Woodford, and Rogers, 2004). Although many good
suggestions came out of the Re-Envisioning the Ph.D. project that impacted the training of Ph.D.
students and beyond, the project officially ended in 2003 (Borkowski, 2006). While the website
(http://www.depts.washington.edu/envision) was previously available, there are no active posts.
Considering why the program did not continue may also be critical to this study.
Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate
The Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate (CID) is a five-year project that was initiated in
2001 under the assumption that the same problems and concerns from the 1970's continue to exist
within doctoral education today, despite a changing educational landscape (Golde, 2006, p. 5).
Similar to the PFF, the CID points to the mismatch between doctoral student training and the reality
of their work as one of the major problems within doctoral education (Golde, 2006). Golde (2006)
specifically highlights how departments continue to place the highest value and prestige on the
professoriate career, despite doctoral training being outdated and many students pursuing other
career paths. Prewitt (2006) adds that current "career preparation is not even satisfactory for the new
Ph.D.'s who attain tenure-track positions in research universities. Although prepared to do original
research, they seldom are adequately prepared for their teaching duties or their more general
professional obligations" (p. 26).
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 41
The CID aims to investigate ways to better align the purpose and practices of doctoral
education within six disciplines, including Chemistry, Education, English, History, Mathematics,
and Neuroscience, which were the most motivated and committed disciplines to reform their
doctoral programs (Golde, 2006). The purpose of selecting the various disciplines is because they
each differ with regards to the goals, approaches and structures of their respective doctoral programs
(Golde, 2006). Additionally, the program partnered with disciplinary leaders and societies,
recognizing they are the general experts in the selected disciplines and could best inform the reform
efforts of the study (Golde, 2006).
After selection of each discipline, the project also selected participating departments within
each discipline; the CID believed that the academic departments are the key decision makers with
most of the power in regards to doctoral education knowledge and reform (Golde, 2006). For this
reason, the bulk of the efforts for reform were completed by faculty and students within the
participating departments, and they each had autonomy in terms of the research process they each
adopted, and the areas of their programs they wanted to focus on for improvement (Golde, 2006).
While CID provided no funding for participating departments, it did commission each of the
disciplines to write essays, mainly on how their specific programs should be structured to meet the
challenges they outlined for each of their programs (Golde, 2006). The main reason the CID did not
fund departments to implement changes was due to their observations that funded projects tended to
be founded on the goals of the funding source and would typically not continue once the funds had
exhausted (Golde, 2006). Because participants in the CID project initiated their own proposals for
change and implemented only those changes that were feasible, the likelihood of the efforts
continuing long-term were assumed to be high (Golde, 2006). In other words, faculty and students
had a greater sense of responsibility and ownership of the efforts, than, for example, a study that
mostly benefits an external source (Golde, 2006).
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 42
The initial question CID aimed to answer was "what is the purpose of doctoral education"
and eventually proposed the answer that the central purpose of the doctorate was "…to educate and
prepare those who can be entrusted with the vigor, quality, and integrity of the field." (Walker,
Golde, Jones, Bueschel, Hutchings, 2008, p. 161). The purpose of the CID project, was, therefore, to
develop stewards of the discipline which refers to individuals who can contribute new knowledge,
preserve valuable ideas and transfer these concepts and skills through their writing, research and
teaching (Walker, 2004; Walker, Golde, Jones, Bueschel, Hutchings, 2008). CID, in turn, provides
the structure that faculty leaders need to be able to reflect and assess their programs to implement the
changes necessary to improve program effectiveness and prepare Ph.D. scholars to become better
stewards of the discipline (Walker, 2004). This structure includes conceptual analysis (or the
reflection and discussion on existing practices, goals and expected outcomes and drafting of
proposals), experimentation (implementation of suggested ideas), and evaluation and dissemination
(assessment and publication of suggestions and outcomes) (Walker, 2004).
Areas Related to NTTF
Similar to the PFF program, the central purpose of the CID project is at the heart of this
dissertation in that it looks to align training at the doctoral level with the reality of the graduates'
work as NTTF. While the CID considers reform in all aspects of doctoral education, it guides the
focus of this study as it considers the disciplines in which tenure-track opportunities are limited –
English and History— and offers the reasons why involving disciplinary societies along with
department leaders is critical to the studies' credibility, ownership, and visibility within each
discipline. The CID project takes on a different approach in that it allows disciplinary experts to lead
and engage in on-going discussions of current practice, that includes goals for reform and
implementation, which based on essays published by different disciplinary leaders, this approach
seems to give academics the time and space to officially and widely communicate such concerns
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 43
about their fields (Walker, 2004). Challenges are not discussed heavily in the literature reviewed for
this chapter, but may be related to funding and finding ways of incorporating ideas and time for
reflection into their current programs.
Outcomes Related to NTTF
While the primary goal of the study and its approach to sampling is useful to the design of
this dissertation study, the CID project does not focus on the issue of a growing NTTF within each
of the fields. As a result, a gap in understanding this phenomenon as it impacts doctoral education
training within each of these disciplines continues to exist. However, as outlined in Appendix A, this
study does point to several areas that may inform this dissertation, including the importance of (a)
collaborating with disciplinary leaders, (b) focusing on discipline-specific efforts, (c) and
considering the qualities and skills of future faculty (or stewards of the discipline) (Walker, 2004).
Additionally, the CID is perhaps the only project that incorporated a form of assessment to measure
the effectiveness/outcomes of the program. The CID incorporates a holistic assessment approach at
the departmental level that Golde, Jones, Bueschel, and Walker (2006) refer to as self-examination,
or the process by which faculty and students continue to reflect on and refine their vision, policies,
and practices. While the CID was able to implement a way to assess the program, the self-evaluation
process did pose challenges, including: difficulty in defining specific mission statements and
program goals, mistrust in the data due to lack of familiarity with social science research techniques,
varying attitudes about assessment based on previous experiences, developing the will to change,
and the culture of privacy (Golde, Jones, Bueschel, and Walker, 2006).
Toward a Responsive Ph.D.

As previously mentioned, doctoral education in the US is highly respected and sophisticated
due to its decentralized and individualistic nature and its success in attracting the best scholars in the
world and preparing many societal leaders. While it can claim much success over the years, the
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 44
purpose, goals, and overall concept of doctoral education continue to be in question. Recognizing
that doctoral education needs to find a dynamic balance between its academic and social realms, The
Responsive Ph.D. Project, organized by the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation and
funded by the Pew Charitable Trust and the Atlantic Philanthropies, was implemented with the aim
to "strengthen the presence of a varied but holistic doctoral education within the academy and to
encourage a far more dynamic interchange between social and academic realms" (Weisbuch, 2004,
p. 218). The study partnered with fourteen institutions and held roundtables that consisted of
faculty, students, administrators, and business and community leaders (Weisbuch, 2004). The project
was a five-year initiative intended to use the findings from the Re-Envisioning the Ph.D. Project to
make specific recommendations for change (Weisbuch, 2004).
Areas Related to NTTF
The project is grounded in four themes— new partnerships, new paradigms, new practices,
and new people (Weisbuch, 2004). While all of the themes inform doctoral education reform, only
some of the themes inform this dissertation. For example, the new partnerships theme aims to
develop partnerships within and external to the university to improve its governance (Weisbuch,
2004). Because doctoral programs are governed mostly at the departmental level, programs are
limited to the ideas and agendas of its department chair and faculty, versus the graduate school, and
other higher education institutions and private constituencies (Weisbuch, 2004). The new
partnerships theme, therefore, aims to increase the collaboration between local leadership and
leaders at other institution types and disciplines (Weisbuch, 2004). This goal is useful in considering
reform to address a growing NTTF as these new partnerships would not only increase opportunities
to better align programs with the realities of the changes in our professoriate, but it increases
collaborations that would never take place otherwise.
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 45
The second theme, new paradigms, also informs this dissertation in that it is meant to
produce opportunities for interdisciplinary scholarship as a means of using research to further
training in other areas, such as teaching (Weisbuch, 2004). Weisbuch (2004) argues that this theme
would address some of the criticisms of doctoral education, which point to research being more
important than teaching, by bringing teaching and research together under new models for training
programs. Examples of such efforts include the National Science Foundation's Integrative Graduate
Education and Research and Teaching Program (Weisbuch, 2004). This is particularly important to
developing an improved career pipeline for NTTFs as most NTTF lack time to engage in research
and over the years are unable to attain tenure-track appointments, due to their inability to continue
expanding their publications. In addition, incorporating opportunities for NTTFs to continue
researching may make the position more appealing to students who have preference for a teaching-
focused position, yet having the option to utilize their training in research. Encouraging more
research engagement from NTTF may also increase the prestige of the NTTF position.
The third theme, new practices, also informs this dissertation in that it focuses on teaching and
service and aims to give students practical opportunities to expand their expertise beyond the
doctoral program walls (Weisbuch, 2004). Beyond encouraging additional courses on pedagogy and
increasing mentorships in teaching, this theme also aims to train doctoral students to better
understand the academic landscape and have increased opportunities in service (Weisbuch, 2004).
While the goal of this theme is to grant faculty and student participants the opportunity to apply their
knowledge and learning beyond the academic environment, this concept is of particular importance
to doctoral reform and NTTF, as most NTTF are unable to serve on campus committees and beyond.
Socializing students to the varying educational landscape and service opportunities could, therefore,
provide better training for NTTF so that they are better able to navigate their campuses, and to
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 46
possibly encourage more disciplines and institutions to be open to utilizing NTTF for service on
committees or in other areas of need.
Outcomes Related to NTTF
The results of the roundtable discussions have proposed some fascinating results that have
been implemented at various institutions. For example, the graduate school, alumni association and
the career center at Yale University developed a pilot program for alumni networking database
(Weisbuch, 2004). This allowed for the ongoing collaboration and networking activities between
alumni and doctoral programs. Other examples, include (a) the creation of new courses and
programs to support an innovative dissertation process in which students are able to see the direct
impact of their dissertation work in practical settings, (b) programs to encourage pedagogical
training research, (c) increased transparency on variety of placement opportunities, disciplinary
expectations, and budgetary concerns, and (d) efforts to increase doctoral student service and
involvement in continuing to improve doctoral education (Weisbuch, 2004).
Some of the recommendations suggested by the Towards a Responsive Ph.D. projects were
centralizing the graduate school so that it can better strengthen the collaborations across disciplines
and increasing the intellectual experiences of students, increased conversations and collaborations
between students, faculty and employers of Ph.D.’s, efforts to increase alumni participation in
doctoral student training, Ph.D. programs need to be structured in such a way that increases the voice
of doctoral students, transparency of expectations and career prospects needs to be increased at
earlier stages, mentoring efforts need to expand, especially to attract and retain underrepresented
students in doctoral education (Weisbuch, 2004).
The Survey on Doctoral Education and Career Preparation
As mentioned in Chapter One, throughout the 1990's doctoral education was in the midst of
attempting to address many of its concerns, including the oversupply of Ph.D.'s, overly specialized
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 47
areas of research, and the Ph.D. graduates' inability to translate skills from their doctoral programs to
work outside of academia (Golde and Dore, 2001). The National Academy of Sciences, the National
Science Board, and the Association of American Universities were amongst the major educational
organizations that involved in addressing such concerns, but none of these efforts considered the
perspectives of doctoral students (Golde and Dore, 2001). For this reason, the National Survey on
Doctoral Education and Career Preparation was designed, and its purpose was to consider the
doctoral student experience so that it could better inform doctoral reform efforts by highlighting the
strengths and weaknesses of doctoral programs (Golde and Dore, 2001). While this survey is not
considered a significant reform effort, but rather a research study, it is important to include here as it
informs areas for change from a student lens that further support the other reform efforts and
provides new information.
The survey administered in 1999 examined 4,114 graduate students in 11 arts and sciences
disciplines at 27 different universities and one program (Golde and Dore, 2001). Based on student
responses, the survey results further support that many of the concerns expressed by doctoral
students were similar to those already being discussed amongst educational organizations and
scholars (Golde and Dore, 2001). The overall concerns pointed to students experiencing a three-way
mismatch between the purpose of doctoral education, their training within the program and the
reality of their work post-graduation. The concerns also point to students having a lack of
understanding of the expectations of doctoral programs that is sufficient to help them navigate their
studies and careers successfully (Golde and Dore, 2001).
Areas Related to NTTF
One of the significant findings of the survey that is critical to informing this dissertation is
that about sixty-three percent of all respondents stated that they were interested in pursuing a career
in academia (Golde and Dore, 2001). Especially within History and English disciplines, about 80%
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 48
of the respondents expressed a strong interest in pursuing tenure-track appointments (Golde and
Dore, 2001). Table One below displays the responses in regards to interest in pursuing an academic
appointment and how students believe attaining those appointments is a realistic possibility. The
table points to the humanities, including History and English, as the areas where most students
pursue academic appointments as their professional aspiration. The table also shows, however, that
these disciplines are also where most students are less likely to believe that attaining a career in
academia is a realistic goal.
Table One
Ph.D. Student Career Goals
n= 4,114
Disciplines/Fields
Ph.D. Students Pursuing
Academic Appointment
63% (or 2,592)
Ph.D. Students Who
Believe Academic
Appointment is a
Realistic Possibility
48.2% (or 1,983)
Philosophy 88.7 52.2
History 81.2 51.5
English 79.7 42.7
Mathematics 75 59.2
Art History 72.7 56.4
Sociology 70.2 62.2
Ecology 66.1 45.9
Geology 58 38.6
Psychology 52.6 54.5
Molecular
Biology
42.9 36.1
Chemistry 36.3 40.4
Other 60.7 71.9
Source: Adapted from Golde and Dore (2001)
Based on responses from the survey, students expressed that they are initially interested in
becoming a professor because they visualize the profession as ideal based on their experiences and
interactions with faculty mentors (Golde and Dore, 2001). Students are also motivated to pursue
academic careers due to their interest in teaching, research and service (Golde and Dore, 2001).
Their initial interest, however, diminishes as students pursue their doctorate degrees and begin to
learn about some of the challenges within academia (Golde and Dore, 2001). For example,
especially for students in the humanities discipline, the job market or the limited opportunities for
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 49
tenure-track appointments is disappointing. Their exposure to certain processes, such as the tenure
and external funding processes also discourage them from wanting to pursue an academic career
(Golde and Dore, 2001). Table Two below outlines some of the students' responses with regards to
changes in interests in academic appointments. The responses point to the tenure process and the
condition of the current academic job market as two of the most critical areas which discourage
students most from pursuing a tenure-track appointment (Golde and Dore, 2001).
Table Two
Factors Negatively Influencing Decision To Pursue Academic Careers
Factor Negatively Influencing
Decision to Pursue Faculty Career
n=4,114
More Interested No Effect Less Interested
Tenure and Promotion Process 3.5 47.8 48.6
Academic Job Market 8.5 48.9 42.5
Work Load Expectations 9.6 58.5 31.9
Obtaining Research Funding 14.7 58.1 27.2
Salary Levels 6.1 69.9 23.9
Source: Adapted from Golde and Dore (2001).

Results from the survey also point to research as the emphasis of training within most Ph.D.
programs, which only prepares students for the tenure-track appointments that specifically focus on
research (Golde and Dore, 2001). Even though research trains students to gain skills in various
methodological approaches, analysis, academic writing, and in developing in-depth knowledge of
their fields, responses from this survey show that students believe doctoral programs are not
providing adequate support and training for the development of other skills expected from faculty,
especially teaching and ethical conduct (Golde and Dore, 2001).
The survey's responses related to student placement are perhaps mostly related to this
dissertation. Golde and Dore (2001) point to the fact that only about fifty percent of doctoral
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 50
students in the participating fields will eventually place into tenure-track appointments with a
smaller percentage placed at a research university. Most students who are pursuing an academic
appointment will instead work at community colleges or liberal arts colleges where the focus is on
teaching and service (Golde and Dore, 2001). In addition, the length of time it takes for a Ph.D.
graduate to obtain tenure-track employment is increasing. For example, the survey shows that fifty-
eight percent of English Ph.D.’s hold tenure-track appointments ten years after graduation and
fifteen percent of English Ph.D.’s continue to hold non-tenure-track positions ten years after
graduation (Golde and Dore, 2001). While the tenure-track appointment percentage is high, the
percentage of students taking on more full and part-time non-tenure track appointments during the
ten years in between their graduation and final placement in the tenure-track is also high.
Golde and Dore (2001) point out that while non-tenure faculty make up the majority of our
teaching force today, we know little about their needs as faculty, with the exception that teaching
takes up the majority of their time. In this regard, doctoral students are not well equipped for NTTF
appointments as their programs usually only offer short training orientations or assistantships that do
not train students to teach their own class. Some institutions have designed more elaborative training
programs, but these are few. In fact, "[f]ewer initiatives have emphasized helping prospective
faculty members learn the skills they will need, such as working with a diverse population of
students, constructing a course, advising and mentoring students, employing a varied pedagogical
repertoire and assessing student learning" (Golde and Dore, 2001, p.21). Students asked about
opportunities within their programs that prepare them most for faculty roles point mostly to having a
teaching development center available (62.4%), their professionalization workshops or seminars on
teaching (51.2%), their TA training course (46.4%), and the opportunity to work with another
campus (39%). These findings are similar to what the reform efforts mentioned earlier in this
dissertation suggest as recommendations.
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 51
Outcomes Related to NTTF
While the survey results point to many areas of doctoral education that need reform, the
recommendations that mostly relate to this dissertation revolve around providing accurate job market
information to students, increasing mentoring relationships, sharing more information about non-
traditional career paths and being supportive of alternative positions (Golde and Dore, 2001). Other
recommendations include implementing efforts to measure whether or not the structure of the
program supports student goals, expanding disciplinary boundaries, inviting guest speakers,
providing professional development activities, providing resources to help students with teaching
skills, developing centralized career services for doctoral students, and providing reward systems for
good mentoring and advisors (Golde and Dore, 2001).
While the survey makes great suggestions for reforming doctoral programs, their suggestions
for the improvement of training are still not entirely focused on NTTF. Also, this study is based on
students' self-assessment and did not assess the same students at different points in time while survey
data was being collected, which is a limitation (Golde, Jones, Bueschel, and Walker, 2006).
Regardless, the survey did gather data that was never before available (Golde, Jones, Bueschel, and
Walker, 2006). Many of the suggestions here may overlap with the findings of this dissertation, but
much of the data in this survey justifies the need for a reform effort specifically addressing the
NTTF population, especially within the Humanities, and in particular, the English and History
disciplines.
Report of the MLA Task Force on Doctoral Study
In the past couple of years, an increasing number of articles and reports have been published
which address the concerns with the condition of doctoral education in the midst of a declining
academic job market. Most of the articles discuss topics such as alternative careers options, the
overproduction of Ph.D.’s, concerns with lack of training in teaching, time to degree, the purpose of
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 52
pursuing a Ph.D., and the need to better inform students about the realities of the academic job
market and the need to advocate for the improvement of working conditions for NTTF (Guerra,
2001; Cassuto, 2014). Perhaps most related to this dissertation are the recent efforts by MLA and
AHA with regards to changes to doctoral study and the need to promote career diversity, which are
described in the next sections.
Motivated by the concern with the future of the humanities and the current state of Ph.D.
education, the MLA's Task Force on Doctoral Study (funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation)
examines doctoral education in the field of English to suggest recommendations for change (MLA,
2014). With the goals to maintain academic excellence, preserve access to graduate programs,
expand career horizons, and focus on Ph.D. student needs, the MLA interviewed local leaders,
stakeholders outside of the academy, graduate students, and other MLA members and proposed the
following recommendations for change: (a) redesign doctoral programs by having departments better
align their training with the career and learning needs of the students (b) provide training in
technological advanced for scholarly research and teaching, (c) consider new forms for the
dissertation, (d) improve teaching preparation and training, (e) offer training for careers beyond the
professoriate, (f) make use of all campus resources towards mentorship and training, (g) provide
more information and validate alternative career options, (h) revise admission practices to consider
alternative careers and to be inclusive of underrepresented groups (MLA, 2014).
As mentioned earlier, this study is perhaps one that comes closest to focusing on how
doctoral education reform can address the concerns with the job market, in particular, the decline in
TTF jobs. The report includes an extensive section describing the academic market and highlighting
the concern that while many Ph.D.’s in the field pursue academic careers, the number of TTF
placements continues to decline, and the faculty profile continues to change (MLA, 2014). The
report states that while the MLA Job Information List in 2008 lists 600 TTF job ads, the Survey of
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 53
Earned Doctorates reported about 1000 new Ph.D.’s recipients in English that same year, not
including graduates from previous years who are still on the market (MLA, 2014). Additionally the
study points to the significant shift from TTF towards NTTF. While in 1975 70% of the faculty was
made up of full-time TTF, today only 29.8% of the faculty are TTF (MLA, 2014). The report also
points to the need to restructure the training of doctoral students to ensure they have mentors on and
off campus and receive training towards teaching positions, as these are likely the positions most
Ph.D.’s will attain (MLA, 2014). The task force finally highlights the importance for the fields to
advocate for the improvement of NTTF appointments and provide training for Ph.D.’s in a wide
range of careers within and outside of academia (MLA, 2014).
Related to this dissertation, the report also makes mention of the challenges with shifting the
culture of faculty to embrace alternative academic careers (alt-ac) careers and view these careers as
valuable options. "The prevailing culture in the modern languages and literature, however—perhaps
more so than in other fields—relies on an exceedingly narrow narrative of success" (MLA, 2014,
p.6). Here the report points to the misalignment between what the Academy values as successful,
and the realities of the market that limits only a fraction of Ph.D.’s in English to attain such success
and dismisses the value of other careers that Ph.D.’s in English pursue (MLA, 2014). However,
while the report briefly mentions that disciplinary societies should work towards advocating for a
shift in the culture to embrace necessary changes in doctorate education, the report does not discuss
exactly what disciplinary societies can or will do to help shift the culture of Ph.D. study and instead
the recommendations remain focused on what local leaders can/should do and on examples of how
specific programs have previously implemented some of the recommendations for change.
American Historical Association Career Diversity Project
The American Historical Association is also currently in the midst of their own project that
aims to promote and value alt-ac careers or careers beyond the tenure-track appointment in response
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 54
to the realities of the academic labor market for History Ph.D.’s and also in support of the many
students who realize they want to pursue a Ph.D., but do not necessarily seek a tenure-track
appointment. In an article titled The Many Careers of History Ph.D.’s, Townsend and Wood (2013)
report that of the 2,500 history Ph.D.’s between 1998 and 2009, 24.2% are currently working in non-
academic careers, 50.6% have a tenure-track at a four-year institution, 2.4% have a tenure track at a
2 year institution, 14.7% are currently in a NTTF appointment at a four-year institution and 3.1%
have a NTTF appointment at a 2 year school. Others were either not found (2.8%), deceased (1.1%)
or retired (1.1%). While just over half of the graduates had attained tenure-track placements, the
report highlights the high number of Ph.D.’s who end up in alt-ac careers (which actually surpassed
the NTTF appointments). Additionally, contrary to what some studies point to with regards to the
marketability of Ph.D.’s from elite programs, Townsend and Wood (2013) report that Ph.D.’s from
elite institutions were just as likely to work in non-academic careers as Ph.D.’s from non-elite
programs.
Prior to Townsend and Wood's (2013) report, Grossman (2011) wrote an article in
Perspective on History, a newsletter for the AHA, titled No More Plan B: A Very Modest Proposal
for Graduate Programs in History. In his article Grossman (2011) discusses the missed opportunity
the discipline faces by not valuing and embracing careers beyond the tenure-track appointment. He
says, that by holding on to traditional thinking the Academy "ignores the facts of academic
employment; second, it pushes talented scholars into narrow channels, and makes it less likely that
[Ph.D. graduates] will take schooled historical thinking with them into a wide range of employment
sectors" (Grossman, 2011, retrieved from http://www.historians.org/publications-and-
directories/perspectives-on-history/october-2011/no-more-plan-b). Grossman also points out the
academic job market statistics and shows a 29.4% (from 806 to 569) drop in the number of tenure-
track jobs posted with AHA in 2009, all while 989 Ph.D.’s graduated that same year.
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 55
As a result of the state of the academic market, the AHA, funded by the Andrew W. Mellon
Foundation began the Career Diversity Project in 2012 which looks to shift the culture of Ph.D.
programs to be more inclusive of and to value careers beyond the professoriate (Jones, 2014). The
project focuses on the need for doctoral curricula to evolve towards improved communication,
teamwork, quantitative literacy, and intellectual confidence (Brookins & Grossman, 2014). By
allowing students to practice communicating their knowledge to various audiences, work
collaboratively with others within and beyond the history field, engage in more quantitative training
and develop an improved intellectual confidence to take their knowledge beyond the settings they
are used to, the AHA is confident graduate education will help Ph.D.’s attain the training they need
to be successful in all types of careers (Brookins & Grossman, 2014).
Summary of Findings from Major Reform Efforts
In comparing the major doctoral reform efforts reviewed in this chapter (See APPENDIX A),
common recommendations for change include improving pedagogical training, mentorships,
increasing partnerships, promoting alternative career options, increasing communication and
transparency and shifting the culture of faculty to embrace non-traditional placements and training.
While not all of these categories may be related to ways to change graduate education to address
concerns with a growing NTTF, the similarities across studies do point to the areas of graduate
education this study considers including in the protocol and help in the analysis of the data by
comparing the findings from previous studies to those of this dissertation. Also, while suggestions
from previous reform efforts may have contributed to positive changes in doctoral education,
consideration that most of the findings continue to be the same over the years and that all of the
studies focus their recommendations on local leaders in specific settings may first suggest the need
to seek a more general approach with this dissertation. Related to this point is the need to focus this
study on how leaders of disciplinary societies versus leaders of departmental programs respond with
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 56
changes as they may provide more general and forward thinking ideas that may compliment and
further some of these findings, and also provide more direction on ways to implement such
recommendations for change.
Additionally, most of the studies point to the need for focusing the study within specific
disciplines, due to the complex and unique nature of doctoral programs (Golde, 2006; Golde &
Dore, 2001; Pruitt-Logan & Gaff, 2004; Walker, 2004). The studies in this review point to English
and History as the disciplines impacted most by the changes in the professoriate, as they have t
highest number of Ph.D. students seeking academic appointments (Golde, 2006; Golde & Dore,
2001; Grossman, 2011; MLA, 2014; Pruitt-Logan & Gaff, 2004; Townsend & Wood, 2013; Walker,
2004). For this reason, this study focuses its research question on two distinct disciplines—English
and History.
Conclusion
This chapter reviews some of the major doctoral reform efforts that inform doctoral
education as it pertains to academic labor market shifts from TTF to NTTF. Review of such studies
is critical, especially as the literature on doctoral education specifically about the NTTF phenomena
is minimal. While most of the reform efforts examined in this chapter discuss overall improvements
needed in doctoral education, the parts of the literature highlighted in this chapter point to the
specific areas that may relate to how labor market changes towards more NTTF impact doctoral
student training. In addition, the literature also informs the methodological approach of this study, in
that it points to the particular disciplines and samples that are mostly impacted by the NTTF
phenomenon.
In conclusion, the review of the literature serves to justify the need for this dissertation, as
studies are lacking that specifically focus on how the doctoral programs respond/address the
changing labor market to improve further the NTTF position and continue to attract Ph.D. students
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 57
to the professoriate. "How graduate students experience their doctoral journey and how they view
its relevance once they make the transition into a career are valuable sources of evidence about the
efficacy of doctoral educational practices" (Maki & Borkowski, 2006, p.2). Ensuring we better align
the training of Ph.D. students with the reality of their work as NTTF, is critical to preserving the
quality of Ph.D. programs and higher education overall.

REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 58
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This chapter describes the rationale for utilizing a grounded theory approach to this study, the
process of selecting participants, the approach to data collection and data analysis, and the
limitations, trustworthiness, and ethical considerations. As discussed in the preceding chapters,
research studies that examine doctoral education reform were mostly motivated by the misalignment
between training and the reality of Ph.D. graduate placements, and often focused their
recommendations on implementing more pedagogical training, reducing time to degree, and offering
diverse career options within and beyond academia (Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, Sims and Denecke, 2003;
Golde, 2006; Golde & Dore, 2001; Grossman, 2011; MLA, 2014; Nyquist, Woodford, and Rogers,
2004; Townsend & Wood, 2013; Weisbuch, 2004). Therefore, further understanding how doctoral
education reform can also address an overreliance on NTTF may benefit the academy and contribute
to the literature on NTTF and graduate education.
Building on previous Ph.D. reform efforts, the goal of this study was to understand how
disciplinary leaders are addressing growing concerns with NTTF via changes to graduate education,
including their ideas for changes to policies, practices, and Ph.D. student training. Using a grounded
theory approach, I examined the data taken from seven leaders from major disciplinary societies in
the fields of English and History and three adjunct faculty (two recently promoted to TTF). The
findings resulted in six strategies for changes in Ph.D. education that can guide leaders who are
looking to improve the overreliance on NTTF and/or further improve the working conditions and
advocacy for NTTF. Additionally the findings suggest the need for disciplinary leaders to
collaborate more with local leaders especially in guiding them through the implementation of
systematic changes to graduate education that are effective and long-standing.
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 59
While further evidence is needed to examine whether these strategies actually address the
concerns with increasing NTTF placements and their working conditions, the study has implications
for both disciplinary and local department leaders who work with Ph.D. programs in English and
History. By applying the strategies for change, leaders might further examine the effectiveness of
such strategies on addressing NTTF concerns and in turn, provide Ph.D. students with more valuable
academic career options over time. The following research question was central to the study: How
are disciplinary leaders in the fields that have had the labor market shift dramatically from tenure
track to non-tenure track (English and History) responding with changes in terms of doctoral
education and training?
In the following sections, I first present the rationale for selecting a grounded theory
approach. I then discuss the approach to sampling, data collection, and analysis. Finally, the chapter
concludes with a discussion of the limitations, trustworthiness and ethical considerations for the
study.
Methodological Approach: Grounded Theory
Grounded theory was first introduced by sociologists Barney G. Glaser and Anselm L.
Strauss during the mid-1960's when qualitative research was beginning to lose ground and an
emphasis in quantitative methods gained dominance amongst academic institutions, editorial boards
and funding agencies (Charmaz, 2006). With the introduction of their book The Discovery of
Grounded Theory, Glaser and Strauss disrupted the concerns with the validity of qualitative methods
and proposed qualitative approaches specific to grounded theory research that offered a more
theoretical enlightenment of social processes that was lacking in quantitative research (Charmaz,
2006). Since Glaser and Strauss' introduction, grounded theory has taken further directions,
including the work by Strauss and Corbin in the 1990's and the work by Charmaz in the 2000's,
which is the version I utilized for this study.
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 60
Charmaz (2006) defines grounded theory as "…methods consist[ing] of systematic, yet
flexible guidelines for collecting and analyzing qualitative data to construct theories ‘grounded' in
the data themselves" (p.2). In other words, grounded theory emphasizes the common experience of
individuals with the aim of providing explanation for a process or action (Creswell, 2013; Merriam,
2009). In this sense, a grounded theory approach worked best for this study as it looks at the
common experience of disciplinary society leaders to further understand how they are thinking of
addressing an overreliance on NTTF through changes to Ph.D. education. Especially since the
literature on this specific topic was slim, taking on an inductive approach was best, meaning that the
findings in this study developed from the interviews and not necessarily from existing theories or
preconceived notions (Charmaz, 2006; Creswell, 2013; Merriam, 2009); as grounded theorists
consider the experiences of the research participants and study the explanations for their actions,
they make analytical sense of the data to cultivate a theoretical understanding of the phenomenon
studied (Charmaz, 2006; Creswell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). In this sense, a unique aspect of grounded
theory is the building of a substantive theory, or in the case of this study, a set of strategies that can
be utilized to address concerns with a growing NTTF via changes to graduate programs (Merriam,
2009).
Considering Charmaz' (2006) definitions of grounded theory, three additional reasons explain
why this approach worked best for this dissertation. The first reason is that, this qualitative study
examined two relatively new phenomena—a growing non-tenure track faculty and doctoral
education reform— to further understand how disciplinary leaders interpret and respond to the
changes in the academic labor market, in particular, the increase in NTTF positions, and how they
address such concerns with changes to Ph.D. education. On the one hand, this study focuses on
NTTF, who have been around for quite some time but are considered a new phenomenon in that they
are beginning to outpace tenure-track faculty, particularly at the four-year research and teaching
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 61
institutions. This growth in NTTF appointments introduces new concerns at various levels and
affects different stakeholders, including students, faculty, administrators, and the public (Benjamin,
2002; Kezar and Sam, 2010). The identification and acknowledgment of these concerns are growing
and only a limited number of studies have begun to understand specifically and confirm the
implications these new faculty appointments will have on the future of academic programs, students,
and faculty. Beyond the MLA's recent report on doctoral studies which is perhaps the closest in
design to this dissertation, currently no systematic process or explanations exist that directly support
how changes to Ph.D. student training and Ph.D. program policies and practices can serve to
improve the working conditions and prestige of the NTTF position.
On the other hand, this study also focuses on doctoral education reform that is also a
relatively new phenomenon in that major reform efforts have mostly occurred within the last decade
and none of these efforts have focused entirely on how a growing NTTF population impacts the
training, practices and policies within Ph.D. programs. Instead, most reform efforts consider all of
the usual challenges of doctoral education, such as time to degree, the need for more pedagogical
training, attrition rates, and mentorships, some of which may relate to this dissertation.
The second reason why I utilized a grounded theory approach for this study is because
beyond the recent articles in The Chronicle of Higher Education and the current efforts by MLA and
AHA, not much is known with regards to how leaders think doctoral programs should change its
policies and practices to respond to a shifting academic labor market. In this sense, stakeholders and
scholars are still questioning the Ph.D. training process towards NTTF appointments, let alone the
changing expectations for tenure-track faculty, and the literature on this topic is not yet at a point
that would provide sufficient information to allow for other methodological approaches to the study
to be as effective. Instead, by utilizing grounded theory approach, I was able to gain answers directly
from the perspectives and experiences of disciplinary leaders that resulted in six strategies for reform
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 62
that point to the various areas of Ph.D. education that may help reduce the number of NTTF
placements, and most importantly help further improve the working conditions of NTTF.
Additionally, the findings point to the need for disciplinary leaders to expand their role and
collaborate and work closer with local leaders to implement better systematic mechanisms to
improve Ph.D. education. In using a grounded theory, this study provides practical and useful
suggestions to address some of the already known, and most importantly, the new concerns related
to this topic.
The third reason this study takes on a grounded theory approach was because previous
studies, such as the ones outlined in chapter two utilize more of a case study approach, as they focus
on particular departments and/or programs and provide more specific recommendations for the
problems found in the Ph.D. programs studied. By utilizing a grounded theory approach, I was able
to examine a more general problem and provide more general solutions, allowing the study to take
on a national scale and resulting in transferable results for other studies, even though it is focused on
specific disciplines.
Because this study aimed to understand the relationship between two relatively new
phenomena and sought to provide answers about a specific process from common experiences and
takes on a more general approach to finding solutions, a grounded theory approach was ideal. For
the approach to be effective, however, selecting the right sample for the study was critical. The next
section discusses the sampling approach to this study, including the initial criteria for the sample,
and the approach to theoretical sampling for the rest of the study.
Site Selection
Creswell (2013) states that the first step in a qualitative study is to select the site or
individuals to study and then decide how to gain access and establish rapport so that participants
provide good data. Creswell (2013) further mentions that for grounded theory approaches,
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 63
participants should be from dispersed sites, and have participated in the process that is being studied.
Based on Creswell's (2013) suggestions and the literature reviewed in chapter two, I decided the best
group of individuals for this study would be leaders from various disciplinary societies in the fields
of English and History. This would allow for the sample to consist of leaders from different regions
in the US who have also participated in task forces/committees related to addressing NTTF or
graduate education concerns. Additionally, since most of the previous reform studies utilized local
leaders resulting in more concrete solutions, using disciplinary leaders allowed me to gain more
general solutions and ideas for change.
Purposeful Sampling
To select the individual participants I mainly used a combination of purposeful and
theoretical sampling. Charmaz (2006) agrees that "initial sampling in grounded theory is where you
start whereas theoretical sampling directs you where to go" (p.100). I initially established specific
criteria by using a purposeful sampling approach. Merriam (2009) states purposeful sampling is
"…based on the assumption that the investigator wants to discover, understand, and gain insight and
therefore, must select a sample from which the most can be learned" (p.77). Since I needed to gain a
holistic picture of the ideas, opinions and perspectives of diverse leaders that are more forward
thinking, discipline-specific, and varied by the unique expertise of each participant, using a
purposeful sampling approach, allowed me to establish initially the criteria needed to gain the insight
for this study. While I mainly used theoretical sampling for the remainder of the study, the criteria
used for purposeful sampling still applied for the participants selected through the theoretical
sampling approach. The initial criteria are outlined in Table Three below.

REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 64
Table Three
Purposeful Sampling Criteria
Criteria Justification

Position
 Leader in a Major Disciplinary Society
 Previous experience in the capacity of chair, director of
graduate studies, and/or dean or a current tenured, tenure-track
or adjunct faculty member at a four-year research institution or
liberal arts college
 Advocate for NTTF or familiarity with NTTF concerns or
experience with graduate education
These individuals are the main decision makers within the
disciplines and have a great level of expertise and
leverage in regards to doctoral education reform,
placement and training of graduate students.

Fields
 English
 History
These disciplines have had the most labor market shifts
from Tenure-Track Faculty to Non-Tenure Track Faculty

First level of criteria. The first level of criteria used for this study was the position of the
participant. Seven of the participants in this study served in a leadership capacity for a disciplinary
society, such as executive president, vice-president, chair or co-chair of a committee, or members of
a task-force focused on teaching, professional development, doctoral education and/or non-tenure
track faculty. These participants were not only familiar with the various disciplines included in this
study, but also provided the most forward-thinking leadership and ideas for the advancement of their
disciplines. Also, considering most of these disciplinary societies were already discussing this topic,
most of these leaders had already written on the subject of NTTF and had already been
brainstorming possible ideas for solutions to the problem in varying contexts. Also, these leaders had
tremendous leverage within the disciplines and had established many connections to other experts in
the field that served in gaining access to the participants interviewed for this study.
The first level of criteria also required participants to have previously or currently been a
tenure/tenure-track faculty, a director, department chair, or dean of graduate studies at either a four-
year research or teaching institution. This criterion was critical mainly because previous studies
point to the challenges with shifting the cultures within doctoral programs in their fields. As
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 65
discussed in chapter two, the Preparing Future Faculty program identified the threat that proposed
changes has on traditional cultures of doctoral programs as one the greatest challenge to doctoral
education reform (Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, Sims, & Denecke, 2003); in other words, if the changes do not
contribute to the growth or maintenance of the prestige economy, or the growth of research grants,
publications, and tenure-track faculty appointments, then the proposed changes become a threat to
customary beliefs and values of what the Ph.D. should be (Gaff, Pruitt-Logan, Sims, & Denecke,
2003). By the participants having thorough knowledge and awareness of these traditional cultures
and the ability to reflect upon and articulate them during the interviews (Merriam, 2009), their
responses contributed findings related to the culture of faculty. Participants in these positions also
had a better understanding of the structure and organization of research institutions and, therefore,
had insight into the complex or multi-layered problems that usually exist within local departments
functioning within a broader organization. Including participants who were in a leadership capacity,
with a strong understanding of how doctoral programs function, was critical, especially since the
goal of the study was to look into to the training, practices and policies that govern Ph.D. education
and in turn possibly develop ideas for reform that could address the concerns with a growing NTTF.
Finally, participants were also required to be familiar with the NTTF phenomenon or
currently be working towards addressing the concerns related to this topic. As discussed in chapter
two, because the disciplines chosen for this study were those that have had the highest job market
shifts from TTF to NTTF, all of the participants were already be familiar and had prior experience
with this phenomenon.
Second level of criteria. The second level of criteria considered the disciplines in which the
participants work. Because the study focuses on those disciplines in which there have been the most
shifts in the labor market from TTF to NTTF, and because I wanted to keep the study within the
humanities, participants had to be from the English or History disciplines. All of these disciplines are
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 66
also a part of the larger humanities community, which helped minimize the complexity of the study,
but considered some aspects that are transferable not only within these disciplines, but within their
larger division.
Initial Sampling. By visiting disciplinary society websites and from reading articles related
to the topic, I was able to select initially two disciplinary leaders that not only best matched the
initial criteria described above, but who could also suggest other leaders in the disciplinary societies
I could interview (Merriam, 2009). While only one of the leaders I initially contacted participated in
the study, the other leader did introduce me to the second disciplinary leader who participated in the
study. From these two initial participants, I then utilized a theoretical sampling approach to select the
other eight participants for the remainder of the study. Theoretical sampling is discussed in the next
section.
Theoretical Sampling
"…Theoretical sampling pertains only to conceptual and theoretical development; it is not
about representing a population or increasing the statistical generalizability of your results"
(Charmaz, 2006, p.100). After my interviews with the two disciplinary leaders in the initial sample,
several conceptual categories emerged from the data that helped me identify the next participants
(Charmaz, 2006). Charmaz (2006) points to theoretical sampling aimed solely at collecting data to
develop further a theoretical category that has emerged from the analysis, and not from finding
patterns in the data. Since the emerging categories in the early stages of my data analysis appeared
similar to topics in the literature on NTTF and graduate education reform, the data appeared to be
substantive (Charmaz, 2006). After the initial interviews, I selected five additional disciplinary
leaders, who in addition to having participated on task forces and committees for disciplinary
societies, were also deans or department chairs/directors for various public and private research and
liberal arts institutions. Based on the gaps in the categories that emerged during the analysis of these
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 67
next set of interviews, the need to also interview adjunct faculty was critical to saturate the
categories (Charmaz, 2006). Charmaz (2006) defines saturation in theoretical sampling as the point
"…when gathering fresh data no longer sparks new theoretical insights, nor reveals new properties
of your core theoretical categories" (p. 112). This is not the same as finding patterns within the data,
but rather reaching a point when new properties in the categories no longer emerge. Of the last three
participants selected for the study two had been recently promoted from adjunct to tenure-track
faculty, and one was an adjunct faculty. The last three participants allowed for saturation to be
reached as no new categories appeared to be emerging. Table Four below displays the demographics
for the entire sample.
Table Four
Demographics: Overview of 10 Participants
Participant * Gender Position**
Current/Previous
Institution Type Location

Aurora* F DS** and TT Public Research Northeast US
Patty* F TT (Previously NTT) Public Research Southwest US
Raquel* F DS** and Dean Public Liberal Arts Southwest US
Kent* M TT (Previously NTT) Public Liberal Arts Northeast US
Rodger* M DS**and Dean Private Research Northeast US
Mark* M DS**and Director Private Research Northeast US
Linda* F DS** and NTT Public Research Western US
Gloria* F DS** N/A N/A
John* M DS** and Chair Public Research Western US
Peter* M DS** and Dean Private Research Western US
*All participant names are pseudonyms
** DS denotes positions in a disciplinary society such as on an executive council, task force and/or committee
** TT denotes Tenure-Track Faculty
** NTT denotes Non-Tenure Track Faculty

Theoretical sampling allowed for the generation of a substantive theory, or, in this case, six
strategies towards a better understanding of the areas of within Ph.D. education that may help to
address the concerns with increasing NTTF appointments (Charmaz, 2006; Merriam, 2009).
Theoretical sampling worked closely with data collection and analysis and provided direction after
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 68
different categories emerged from the initial data collection and analysis (Charmaz, 2006). Both data
collection and analysis are discussed the next sections.
Soliciting Participants
All participants for this study were solicited via email. The invitation to participate in the
study as well as the overview of the study that I attached to the email solicitations are available in
Appendices D, E, F and G. The invitation and overview of the study included: (a) the description
and purpose of the study, (b) my motives for conducting this study, (c) issues of confidentiality, (d)
the role of the participants, (e) the logistics of the interviews, and most importantly, (f) how their
expertise/experience and perspectives can contribute to the study (Taylor & Bogdan, 1984). When
participants responded with interest in being a part of the study, I responded to their emails to
schedule the time and date for the interview and provided them with the interview protocol at that
time. This was mainly because I wanted to make sure leaders had more time to think through some
of the questions and provide more in-depth and developed ideas. During the interviews, only three
participants mentioned they spent several days reviewing the protocol while all other participants
indicated they only quickly skimmed through the protocol right before the interview. As mentioned
in the previous initial and theoretical sampling sections above, two disciplinary leaders, who also
served as the main gatekeepers for each of the disciplinary societies, were first solicited. Though one
of the leaders initially solicited was not able to participate, he was able to suggest the second
individual who served as a gatekeeper, and was also instrumental to the study as he pointed to areas
in the initial design that could potentially be problematic. For example, he mentioned that in only
considering how Ph.D. training should change to address concerns with a growing NTTF I would
likely not gain much data, as leaders do not encourage students to pursue NTTF positions and,
therefore, their ideas will likely have less to do with changes to Ph.D. training and more to do with
changes to policies and practices within Ph.D. programs. As a result of this conversation, I made
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 69
minor changes to the central question of the study and to the protocol to allow participants more
flexibility to share their ideas for general changes to Ph.D. education that could include changes to
policies and practices and not simply to Ph.D. student training (see Appendix D-G for changes to the
protocol and overview of study).
After soliciting the first two participants, each of those leaders was able to suggest other
participants based on the emerging concepts from the interview data. I solicited five other
participants via email and made reference to the gatekeepers name to build rapport and increase the
probability of their participation (see Appendix G). Once participants responded with interest, I
emailed them to schedule the interview and attached a revised protocol (see Appendix C). After
conducting the five interviews, an article was published that critiqued MLA's Task Force on
Doctoral Studies report for not including adjunct faculty in their sample (Blum, et al., 2014).
Because the MLA report was probably the closest in design to this study, I decided also to include
adjunct faculty in the sample and contacted one of the disciplinary leaders who did not participate in
this study, but who is an advocate for NTTF and who suggested five adjunct faculty for me to
contact. As a result, I emailed five adjunct faculty who were active members in major disciplinary
societies and advocates for NTTF, from which three responded and interviewed. Overall, I
interviewed 10 participants, four in a major disciplinary society in History and six in a major
disciplinary society in English. While the number of participants was lower than the 15 participants I
initially aimed to interview, Merriam (2009) states that "unlike survey research, in which the number
and representativeness of the sample are major considerations, in [qualitative research] the crucial
factor is not the number of respondents but the potential of each person to contribute to the
development of insight and understanding of the phenomenon" (p. 105). Especially because each of
the interviews were intensive, meaning the participants provided in-depth data, the selection of ten
participants was sufficient to saturate the emerging themes and answer the research question.
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 70
Data Collection Procedures
Charmaz (2006) suggests that through the use of grounded theory, the researcher can reshape
the data collection and, therefore, refine it. Also, an advantage of grounded theory is the flexibility it
offers, as the analysis of collected data can provide the researcher with a clear understanding of what
is happening early on in the data collection phase that will further direct sampling for additional data
collection. Charmaz (2006), however, warns the researcher to select a method of data collection that
will answer the research question; "the logic of grounded theory guides your methods of data-
gathering as well as of theoretical development. [The] aim to create or adopt methods that hold a
promise of advancing your emerging ideas [is critical]" (p. 15). Charmaz (2006) points to several
criteria when considering rich data collection—data should be useful, credible, suitable, and
sufficient. In addition, she discusses the importance of building rapport with participants via
practicing respect, which includes demonstrating effort to learn about participants' views and
understanding them, not from the researcher's lens, but from the participants themselves (Charmaz,
2006).
Document Review
Taking into consideration Charmaz' (2006) suggestions for data collection for a grounded
theory approach, I first read through various documents, including recent articles published in the
Chronicle of Higher Education and Inside Higher Ed and articles available via the major disciplinary
society websites related to the topic of graduate education reform and NTTF. I also reviewed
websites, memos, and reports from major disciplinary societies. The purpose of the initial review of
such documents was to familiarize myself with current issues on the topic (many of the concepts,
ideas and perspectives in these texts ended up being similar to the participants' views shared in the
interviews) and to assist me in developing the initial questions for the interview protocol.
Additionally, having this prior knowledge before conducting the interviews allowed me to build
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 71
rapport with the participants and increased my knowledge to direct better the interviews and be
better versed in such a way that would allow for further probing and improved clarity when
discussing the topic with respondents (Merriam, 2009). This information also served as a way to
triangulate the interview data to ensure emerging categories reached saturation, which is discussed
later in this chapter (Charmaz, 2006).
Interviews
I conducted nine of the ten interviews over the phone and one in-person interview. Most of
the interviews were conducted over the phone due to the geographic location where the various
disciplinary leaders resided. I utilized a semi-structured protocol so that I had the most flexibility to
probe further with additional questions specific to each of the respondent's experience and in turn
gain rich data (Merriam, 2009). Having a semi-structured protocol also helped by providing some
structure as I did not have substantial experience in interviewing (Charmaz, 2006; Merriam, 2009).
"Having an interview guide with well-planned open-ended questions and ready probes can increase
[the researcher's] confidence and permit [the researcher] to concentrate on what the person is saying"
(Charmaz, 2006, p. 29). The initial interview protocol (see Appendix B) I used with the first two
participants interviews included ten questions, with four back-up questions to gain varying types of
data (Merriam, 2009). For each of the interviews following the initial two interviews, I used the
revised protocol (see Appendix C) in which I added/removed questions based on the expertise of the
leaders and based on what resulted from the data analysis of previous interviews (Charmaz 2006).
All of the questions in the protocol were written as specific types of questions. For example,
all of the following types of questions are included in the protocol: (a) experience and behavior (tell
me about your experience in working with doctoral programs, how the growth in NTTF
appointments might impact doctoral education within your discipline?), (b) opinion and values (what
are your perceptions (views/opinions) of NTTF?), (c) knowledge (what would you say are the
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 72
reasons why most doctoral programs continue to train students toward traditional TTF appointments
despite the changes in the academic landscape), and (d) ideal position (In an ideal world, how do you
perceive the role of NTTF at four-year institutions?). The protocol also includes questions directed
to the collective practice and the individual participation in the topics addressed in the study
(Charmaz, 2006). This allowed for the study of the individual experience as well as an in-depth
understanding of the organizational and social process that occurs within Ph.D. education and
disciplinary societies (Charmaz, 2006). Each of these questions allowed participants to provide rich
data that painted a holistic picture in regards to the training, experiences, and ideas related to the
NTTFs and doctoral education phenomena (Merriam, 2009). Additionally, I made sure to include
questions about the areas of doctoral education that previous doctoral reform studies pointed to. This
allowed me to examine whether or not disciplinary leaders in this study were also thinking of similar
ideas.
All of the interviews, with permission of the participants, were audio recorded. Directly
following each interview, I also wrote brief notes in an excel spreadsheet that included my
reflections and any existing biases based on the interview (Charmaz, 2006; Merriam, 2009). The
notes also included initial thoughts on analysis (Merriam, 2009). The notes were mainly used as a
way to ensure my biases did not influence the analysis of the data and to recall initial thoughts from
the interview to ensure accuracy, especially in instances when there were long periods of time in
between interviews and data analysis (Merriam, 2009).
Each of the interviews was sent to a third-party transcriber directly after the interviews took
place. Since transcribing services were utilized, I made sure to check for accuracy, by reviewing the
transcriptions against the recordings (Merriam, 2009). Pseudonyms were used for each of the
participants for storing data and in reporting the findings to preserve confidentiality.

REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 73
Data Analysis
Initial Coding
Coding is essentially the link between the initial data collected and the emerging categories
that explain what is happening and its meaning (Charmaz, 2006). Grounded theory, therefore, differs
from other qualitative approaches in that the researcher remains in active coding, repeatedly
interacting with data, leading the researcher in the direction that will help them make most sense of
what is happening and developing meanings from the data (Charmaz, 2006).
After I received each of the transcriptions and checked them for accuracy, I conducted the
coding in two phases. In the first phase, initial coding, I coded the data by "categorizing segments of
data with a short name that simultaneously summarizes and accounts for each piece of data"
(Charmaz, 2006, p. 44). While I first started by simply categorizing data where I found common
themes, I found this only resulted in providing a general summary of disciplinary leaders' ideas for
changes that were not specifically addressing the concerns with NTTF, but rather addressing the
general challenges with graduate education. In this sense, these findings were no different than
previous reform studies and did not speak to relationships between the data or deeper meanings. To
improve this phase in coding, I re-coded the data this time by conducting line-by-line coding. This
approach provided a greater understanding of what was going on and allowed me to narrow in and
capture only the ideas that pertained to the research question (Charmaz, 2006). To narrow down and
find emerging themes, I used a constant comparative method, which Charmaz (2006) defines as
comparing data with data to identify similarities and differences. Here, after conducting initial
coding, I compared the data from each of the interviews with each other and also with the documents
I reviewed before conducting the interviews. In doing so, I was able to see the similarities and
various themes emerging.

REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 74
Focused Coding
I continued to use the comparative method well into the next phase, focused coding, where I
selected only the most useful codes and compared them against other data (Charmaz, 2006). Here
only the most significant codes were selected as emerging and most salient categories (Charmaz,
2006). At this point I was able to find six major themes which included: (a) being more responsible
and intentional in planning, (b) implementing responsible admission practices, (c) redefining Ph.D.
education, (d) empowering students and faculty, (e) increasing advocacy efforts, and (f) promoting
Alt-Ac Careers.
Axial Coding
Next, I performed axial coding to "…sort, synthesize, and organize large amounts of data and
reassemble them in new ways after open coding" (Charmaz, 2006). The result of axial coding in this
study helped to develop the subcategories of each category and displayed how they connect
(Charmaz, 2006). In conducting axial coding, I was able to examine further what disciplinary leaders
focused on in each of the six themes. This analysis resulted in fifteen subthemes which include: (a)
breaking reluctance to set goals, (b) communicating contingency issues to administration, (c)
collecting more data, (d) increasing responsibility towards diversity, (e) distinguishing between the
MA and Ph.D., (f) rethinking the identity of a Ph.D. scholar, (g) creating good Ph.D. programs, (h)
shifting culture, (i) respecting student agency, (j) informing and transparency, (k) mentorships, (l)
diversifying leadership, (m) organizing local action, (n) celebrating all careers, and (o) dismantling
fear in students and faculty. Each of these subthemes points to areas within each theme that point to
actions needed or challenges that leaders express within each of the six themes. The subthemes
provide more specific direction to areas leaders should be mindful of when looking to implement the
strategies for reform.
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 75
The six major themes and fifteen subthemes that resulted from the data analysis are further
discussed in chapters four and five. These themes and subthemes resulting from the data presented
six strategies that can serve as a framework for future studies that examine the effectiveness of such
ideas on addressing the concerns with NTTF via Ph.D. education reform.
Limitations
Four limitations exist in this study. The first limitation was difficulty in accessing
participants by using a true theoretical sampling approach. Because this study used a sample on a
national scale, gaining participants for this study and building rapport with them was difficult mostly
due to distance, the timing of the study and time differences for interviews. To address this
limitation, I made sure to work with the two gatekeepers who helped me find other participants
based on the emerging themes.
A second limitation was in conducting follow up interviews, which were difficult often
because of the distance between the participant and researcher or because of the period that elapsed
between the interview and the analysis. This limitation pertained only to the earliest interviews. To
address this concern for later interviews, I tried to make sure I thought of follow up questions to ask
during the interviews.
A third limitation revolved around the combination of the power differential between the
participants and researcher and the participants' tendency to share general ideas versus specific ideas
related to Ph.D. reform that might help address the concerns with NTTF. As a result, I experienced a
challenging time in making sure I kept the direction of the interview focused on gaining data to
answer the research question. It was often difficult for leaders to think of ways to change Ph.D.
education to address the increase NTTF appointments. When they did think of ways to change Ph.D.
education, the changes addressed more of the general challenges with graduate education overall.
While some of the interview data did include other ideas to address the concerns of a growing
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 76
NTTF, these were not included in the findings in chapter four, as they did not speak to graduate
reform and, therefore, did not address the research question and spoke more to general ways to
address either concerns with a growing NTTF alone or overall Ph.D. education challenges (Merriam,
2009). The difficulty in getting leaders to think about changes to Ph.D. education to address the
NTTF phenomena specifically was telling of the limitations that disciplinary leaders felt in their role
with the local context and displayed the need for more studies and discussion on this topic.
A fourth limitation was my professional experience in working with a Ph.D. program in the
social sciences. Because the increase in NTTF also impacts the field that I work in, my biases
naturally contributed to preconceived assumptions or misinterpretations of the data. Additionally,
being familiar with the topic made it difficult for me to remain neutral and not empathize with
participants during the interviews. To address this limitation, I reviewed my notes taken directly
after each of the interviews to recognize my biases and avoid this influencing the analysis of the
data.
Trustworthiness
To ensure the credibility, and reliability/transferability of this study, I engaged in
triangulation, peer reviews, awareness of researcher's position, and thorough explanation as to how I
arrived at the results (Merriam, 2009).
Credibility
The credibility of the study has to do with the congruency of the findings with reality
(Merriam, 2009). However, because qualitative research examines human experience, reality is
subjective to how participants perceive their experiences and the world (Merriam, 2009). To ensure
that the findings represented the reality of the experience of the participants, I made sure to
triangulate the data. Merriam posits that triangulation is "probably the most well-known strategy to
shore up the internal validity of a study" (Merriam, 2009, p. 215). By reviewing documents in
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 77
addition to conducting the interviews, I was able to triangulate the data to ensure my interpretations
were credible. Additionally, to ensure my biases did not influence my analysis of the data, I
conducted peer reviews by sharing my analysis of the data with colleagues to confirm the emerging
themes and interpretations were valid (Merriam, 2009).
Reliability
Merriam (2009) describes reliability as the ability for the research findings to be replicated.
However, Merriam (2009) also states that
Because what is being studied in the social world is assumed to be in flux, multifaceted, and
highly contextual, because information gathered is a function of who gives it and how
skilled the researcher is at getting it, and because the emergent design of a qualitative study
precludes a priori controls, achieving reliability in the traditional sense is not only fanciful
but impossible (p. 222).
For this reason, to ensure the findings of this study were transferable, I made sure to record in detail
how I arrived at the findings of this study and provided a thorough description of the sample.
Additionally, the process of triangulation described above was also helpful to ensure the findings
were consistent with the data. Finally, by recording my biases in the brief notes written after each
interview, I was able to disclose any dispositions and assumptions that may have otherwise
influenced the findings (Merriam, 2009).
Ethical Considerations
Merriam (2009) states that "to a large extent, the validity and reliability of a study depend
upon the ethics of the investigator" (p. 228). Due to the following reasons, several ethical
considerations exist: (a) this was my first experience with a grounded theory approach and in
conducting a research study overall; (b) the study focuses on the perspectives of leaders of
disciplinary societies, and (c) the topic includes issues that can be controversial.
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 78
First, because I was inexperienced, I needed to increase my credibility via my knowledge of
the topic and the methodological approach, especially in interviewing participants who are not only
highly familiar with the topic but are also experienced researchers (Merriam, 2009). To accomplish
this, I conducted additional readings on the topic. Having a thorough knowledge of current
discussions on the topic, as well as having familiarity with the language used in regards to the topic
helped increase my credibility, but sometimes led to preconceived ideas that may have influenced
the direction of the interviews (Merriam, 2009). These biases or assumptions were recorded in the
brief notes written after each interview to avoid them influencing the analysis of the data. However,
having prior knowledge did allow me to gain a higher level of confidence as I conducted the
interviews and allowed me to focus more on the actual data collection, rather than on the process of
the interview, which may have been the case with earlier interviews (Merriam, 2009).
Second, ensuring the identities of the participants are protected and that their perspectives are
communicated and interpreted accurately was important (Merriam, 2009). To ensure I understood
the data correctly, I asked follow-up questions during the interviews for clarity and took accurate
notes during and after the interviews so that the data was not taken out of context (Merriam, 2009).
Finally, the likelihood that some of the information and questions being asked are
controversial or confidential was high. For this reason, I worded sensitive questions with careful
attention (Merriam, 2009). This included refraining from judging the responses/opinions of the
participants during the interviews and in the analysis phase, and instead I focused on the collection
of data and analysis from a neutral stance (Merriam, 2009).

REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 79
CHAPTER FOUR
FINDINGS
Introduction
This chapter presents the findings taken from ten interviews with seven disciplinary leaders
and three adjunct faculty in the fields of English and History to answer the question: How are
disciplinary leaders in the fields that have had labor market shifts dramatically from tenure track to
non-tenure track (English and History), responding with changes in terms of doctoral education and
training? The themes and sub-themes are displayed in Figure One at the end of this chapter and
display the following six major themes that arise from the data: (a) being more responsible and
intentional in planning, (b) implementing responsible admission practices, (c) rethinking Ph.D.
education, (d) empowering students and faculty, (e) increasing advocacy efforts, and (f) promoting
Alt-Ac careers
1
. The findings also point to fifteen sub-themes, including: (a) breaking reluctance to
set goals, (b) communicating contingency issues to administration, (c) collecting more data, (d)
increasing responsibility towards diversity, (e) distinguishing between the MA and Ph.D. (f)
rethinking the identity of a Ph.D. scholar, (g) creating good Ph.D. programs, (h) shifting culture, (i)
respecting student agency, (j) informing and transparency, (k) mentorships, (l) diversifying
leadership, (m) organizing local action, (n) celebrating all careers, and (o) dismantling fear in
students and faculty.
I should note upfront that while this study specifically attempted to examine how disciplinary
leaders respond with changes to Ph.D. education to address a growing NTTF, most of the ideas
disciplinary leaders share for change are aimed towards local department leaders and do not always
speak to the role disciplinary leaders can play in such ideas for change. Disciplinary leaders express
that local leaders are best in brainstorming ideas for Ph.D. education reform, as they are most

1
Themes are listed in order from least emphasized ideas to most emphasized ideas.
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 80
familiar and work closest with local departments, administration, faculty, and students. During the
interviews, only in instances when disciplinary leaders were not focusing their ideas on Ph.D.
education reform, did they speak about how disciplinary societies address concerns with NTTF. This
is mainly due to leaders’ strong belief that their role is not necessarily to mandate changes within
local institutions or programs. Therefore, while this study suggests that addressing issues of
contingency via Ph.D. education reform may best be done locally, the findings also suggest the need
for disciplinary society leaders to acknowledge the need for them to guide and collaborate more with
local leaders if they are to encourage any systematic changes at the local level that help address the
concern with a growing NTTF.
Additionally, as explained in chapter three, the focus of this study shifted from examining
changes in Ph.D. student training to examining how disciplinary leaders are thinking of reforming
Ph.D. education policies, practices, and training to address the concerns with the academic labor
market shifts. The change in the study came about during the first two interviews. Considering the
poor working conditions and career trajectories of most NTTF, it made sense why disciplinary
leaders disagreed with the initial direction of this study (examining ways to reform Ph.D. training to
address the concerns with a growing NTTF). For example, a disciplinary leader explains “I don’t
know that it would impact the training per se. I think that all positions that are contingent and that
don’t offer a career trajectory are ones that should be considered an intermediate stage and not as a
career goal.” Most disciplinary leaders, and the academy as a whole, believe that Ph.D. programs
need to prevent students from pursuing NTTF positions that do not offer competitive salaries and
good working conditions. “We also think, and this is hard to say but we think it, that taking on
poorly paid contingent positions is not a career plan, is not a life plan,” explains a disciplinary
leader. Consequently, this study shifted focus to allow disciplinary leaders to share ideas to promote
other valuable careers within and outside the academy and the other findings discussed in this
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 81
chapter as better solutions, as this would provide Ph.D.’s with viable career options, before they
decide to pursue NTTF placements and instead would help to reduce the number of NTTF and/or
advocate for improved working conditions.
With this in mind, the first part of this chapter discusses the six major themes and fifteen
subthemes that arise from the data with ten disciplinary leaders. I then provide a summary of the
findings and I conclude the chapter by briefly stating how these findings may contribute to current
efforts addressing graduate education reform and the academic labor market.
Theme One: Being More Responsible & Intentional in Planning
In analyzing disciplinary leaders’ responses, the first major theme that arises from the data is
the need for departments to engage in long-term strategic planning. When disciplinary leaders refer
to strategic planning they mostly talk about developing clear faculty staffing (the process of hiring
faculty) and curricular offering (course offering) goals to reduce their overreliance on hiring NTTF.
Disciplinary leaders believe that by department leaders implementing an ongoing practice of setting
long-term strategic curricular and faculty staffing goals, departments will be better able to project
curricular and teaching needs within their programs and take on a more proactive approach towards
faculty staffing. With such understanding, disciplinary leaders appear to believe departments will be
less dependent on the hiring of NTTF to fill in the gaps that TTF cannot fill due to the increase in
demand for research and service commitments, course releases and sabbaticals. While this theme
mainly relates to undergraduate education, this is of concern to Ph.D. education as most programs
also hire current Ph.D. students as NTTF. Mark, a disciplinary leader, shares an example of how he
hears faculty justifying the need to use Ph.D.’s for teaching.
His argument was we need graduate students, otherwise we’ll have to teach undergraduates
and that’s just – I mean, that’s like a parody of the self-involved, self-interested professor. If
I hear any more of this like we need the graduate students, otherwise we can’t teach our
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 82
seminars, I really will just scream. There’s plenty of good teaching to be done on the
undergraduate level and that sense that the graduate faculty are here only to teach the
graduate students, that has to go.
By department leaders continuously examining their faculty staffing goals, they would likely
increase their understanding of why they continue to rely on an increasing number of NTTF,
especially the instances when they hire Ph.D. students as NTTF. This theme also discusses the need
for the collection of more robust data in Ph.D. programs, such as placement data. As discussed later
in this section, being more knowledgeable about the reasons why programs are increasingly
depending on NTTF would likely allow them to also better communicate these concerns to their
administration. Administrators, in turn, may gain greater understanding about the issues and be more
willing to prioritize exploring different approaches towards improving the contracts and working
conditions of NTTF or considering more responsible hiring practices.
Breaking the Reluctance To Set Goals
A subtheme that arises from the data is the need to break department leaders’ reluctance to
set goals around curriculum, staffing and strategic directions within departments and programs. The
reluctance mainly arises from department leaders having to already respond to the increasing
accountability in undergraduate education, so they view strategic planning, especially around areas
of programs impacting Ph.D. education, as additional pressure from the administration. As discussed
in the first two chapters, accountability is not common practice for Ph.D. programs, as they often
function autonomously with most of the decision making being within the departments and programs
with little oversight from the administration. Raquel, a disciplinary leader and also a dean at a
private liberal arts college, explains this reluctance, and points to the difficulty in convincing faculty
to see the importance and benefits of setting strategic curricular and staffing goals to address the
increased dependency on NTTF.
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 83
If you’re not going to name goals, you’re never going to get anywhere and that’s – you
know, we’re still as a profession reluctant—you know, we’re still reluctant to name student
learning outcomes, you know, we’re reluctant to name goals in case we don’t meet them, you
know....But faculty members are reluctant to put down quantifiable goals, you know except
for their students, you know on their tests and things…..if we don’t name goals, if we don’t
name our priorities, put them down on paper and name what our goals are, even aspirational,
you know, goals that we- that’ll be hard for us to reach, then we don’t have a chance of being
able to reach them.
Despite their reluctance, disciplinary leaders in this study (most of who also hold positions as deans
or department chairs) seem to think that by department leaders carefully setting curricular and
staffing goals they will gain a better understanding of the needs of their programs and existing
resources and practices, which would make departments less likely to take on a more reactive
approach which often makes them depend heavily on the hiring of NTTF. However, disciplinary
leaders stress that most departments do not take the time to implement better planning mechanisms,
and even in cases when they do, most of the planning is infrequent and carelessly done. Aurora, a
disciplinary leader and a dean at a liberal arts college, shares her frustration as she talks about the
importance for institutions to be more responsible in their practices and align their goals and
practices with their mission.
I definitely want to stress the importance of institutions asking themselves, really asking
themselves, not just in some sort of market driven bullshit strategic planning exercise…You
know, but really ask themselves what is our mission? Whom are we trying to serve? What
are the goals of this program? How will we accomplish them?
Here, Aurora’s response suggests that close examinations and understanding of programs’ missions,
identity, goals, staffing, curriculum, and who they serve are not often done and when they are, the
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 84
examination and planning are superficial and never lead to decisions that align well with the true
needs of the students and department. Aurora continues to explain the importance for
…departments [to] engage in these exercises on a regular basis, because from there comes a
sense of this is who we are, this is who we serve, this is who we want to be and I think that
offers the best possibility for a holistic approach to staffing, curriculum and so on.
When departments do not have a clear understanding of their mission, they experience difficulty in
developing staffing, curricular, and strategic goals that align well with their students and faculty. As
a result, departments are less likely to maximize on their existing resources and will continue to
operate under more reactive approaches making them heavily dependent on the creation of more
part-time NTTF positions to meet last minute teaching needs, for example. Peter, a disciplinary
leader and a dean at a private research institution, provides an example of how departments scramble
at the last minute to find faculty to teach specific courses. He explains that if departments planned
more often and thoroughly, they could better utilize their current faculty which would in turn help to
diminish the number of part time NTTF departments hire and increasingly rely on.
You reduce the overall number if you just get people you have to teach more, but you’re
always dealing with, you know, oh, I need somebody to just teach this. You can’t ask so-and-
so, including one of your tenure-track faculty to just teach that? Oh no, we need somebody
else, we need somebody else you know?
Peter adds that this lack of setting curricular and staffing goals also contributes to myths, such as
faculty and students fearing that administrators are increasingly looking to eventually replace TTF
with NTTF, when in actuality most administrators would like departments to find a different
solution. “We don’t want to see a growth of contingent faculty. We would rather see departments
move towards more tenure-track faculty,” he explains.
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 85
I don’t think there’s any administrator that I know of that is trying to build this whole cohort
of contingent faculty so we can fire people real quick and do this and that. No. We’d like
people to be more accountable and meet the changing needs of what students have, you
know, want. So that’s the- balancing act, that’s the dilemma.
Here Peter points to the lack of ongoing planning with regards to courses and staffing as the
problem. He continues on by sharing a personal example of how his departments missed an
opportunity to create a tenure-track position due to lack of planning for a job search to fill their
teaching needs.
So because I’m an administrator, I’m not teaching the courses I would normally teach…So
for years…I was like come on, you can’t get somebody else in my field to teach the
courses…and I had a dean who said if either of your departments come to me with a request
to hire somebody in your field, I would grant the search. And I couldn’t get either department
to say that…so after four years of seeing the course not taught, I just said the hell with it.
Okay, let’s get a contingent faculty…My preference would have been a tenure-track person,
but I couldn’t get the departments to put a job search together.
Here Peter points to departments not being able to fill a teaching need for four years. Even with
support from the administrators to create a search for a TTF, the departments still did not follow
through and instead agreed to hire a NTTF. While other issues may have impacted this decision,
Peter’s experience provides an example of how departments do not always engage in an ongoing
practice of setting clear curricular and faculty staffing goals and, instead, appear to take a more
reactive approach to staffing and course offering which increases their dependency on PTNTTF to
meet their needs. In turn, Peter believes this continues to communicate to the administration that
hiring part time NTTF is more of a solution rather than a problem.
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 86
While participants are not specific as to how departments can best break their resistance to
set strategic curricular and staffing goals and make goal setting an ongoing practice, some do talk
about the types of questions they need to ask themselves and who should initiate these practices to
ensure they are continuously done. Aurora, explains that the approach can be similar to the way in
which faculty at her institution are having to set goals for undergraduate education and shares the
types of questions that need to be asked.
What are we trying to accomplish? What kinds of faculty appointments do we need to
accomplish this? What fields what specializations, what special things do we need? What do
we have? Okay, we need to expand some and some of the things that we need to get going,
we know we’re going to have to have them every year. We’re going to have to have writing
across the curriculum or whatever courses that we know we’re going to have to offer. So it’s
no longer contingent. We know we’re going to need this every year, we know we’re going to
need X section and we know that we have X number of people covering all these sections.
Wouldn’t it make sense to – and then you start to think. Hey, we could create some full-time
positions with job security and good pay and benefits for people, for example, who don’t
hold the Ph.D. and aren’t on a research position, but professors of the practice, people who –
who’s teaching interests lie in doing this work, and then you hire thoughtfully and in that
way and you – and then you think about the way to integrate those faculty members who are
non-tenure-track into the department life.
Here Aurora explains that by projecting curricular and teaching needs, she believes departments can
then maximize their current resources and be better able to brainstorm ideas to meet their needs
other than just relying on hiring part time NTTF at the last minute.
Aurora continues to explain that the administration should take charge of keeping their
departments accountable to set curricular and staffing goals. She says,
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 87
And a good dean should have her department chairs doing this exercise and then you set up a
plan. Sure, you’re not going to reach it in the first year, maybe even the second. But if you
set up a plan, this is where we are now and this is where we want to be five years from now
and here’s how we’re going to get there, then it’s likely to happen. If you don’t set up the
plan, guess what you’re going to do every semester? Oh, who can we get to teach this
course?
If administrators require department leaders to set strategic curricular and staffing goals as part of a
five-year plan, departments would be mandated to be more responsible about courses they offer,
who needs to teach them and when, and what areas of specializations they need to grow in to remain
relative in the field. While implementing this type of approach will not stop the hiring of NTTF all
together, it would help leaders brainstorm better alternatives to meet curricular and teaching
demands, including the possibility of hiring a limited number of NTTF with better contracts and
working conditions as an option.
Communicating Contingency Issues to Administration
Disciplinary leaders believe that when department leaders engage in an ongoing practice of
setting better curricular and faculty staffing goals and developing strategic plans, department leaders
have a clearer understanding as to how the issue of contingency impacts their programs and as a
result they are better able to communicate such concerns to the administration. Communicating with
administrators about department concerns with an increase in NTTF is critical, as institutional
leaders are not always clear as to how this problem impacts their campuses. Aurora explains that
while administrators may generally understand the degree of the problem with hiring contingent
faculty, they are not always aware that it is an issue on their campus. Unless departments
communicate the severity of the issues, institutional leaders may not always see the need to
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 88
brainstorm ways to improve the contracts and working conditions of NTTF or consider alternative
ways to address the concerns.
So I think there’s a big unless in everything that we’re saying here, unless administrations of
individual campuses see the problem, they will not think that a different way of doing things
is in order. So we’re – we endeavor to show them the problem in terms of the effect on the
tenured, the effect on the students and of course, the effect on the lives who – of those who
are contingently
Here Aurora points to how disciplinary societies can generally communicate to members how an
increase in NTTF impacts tenured faculty and students, but she stresses that some members may still
think these issues do not apply to their institutions, especially if their local leaders are not
communicating the specific concerns about their departments.
My sense is that virtually every single member is aware of the problem and feels to a greater
or lesser extent the urgency. There are some outliers who simply don’t believe the statistics
that we put on our website, or they think these don’t apply to my institution, therefore it can’t
be such a great problem, can it?
Especially if departments do not take the time to understand how contingency impacts their practices
and, most importantly, their Ph.D. programs, they continue to miss the opportunities to communicate
their concerns with contingency to the administration, who may very well think these issues are not
real on their campus. Linda, a disciplinary leader, explains how very often local leaders do not take
the time to understand how an increase in NTTF impacts their programs simply because their Ph.D.
students are gaining good placements. “So it’s easy for some people to say oh well, it’s not – that’s
not really a problem for us, our students can get jobs, you know, tenure-track jobs.” Department
leaders, therefore, also have responsibility for taking the time to look at how contingency
specifically impacts their programs and communicate these concerns to their administration. By
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 89
administrators having a greater understanding about the impact of an increasing NTTF, especially in
instances where departments hire Ph.D. students as NTTF, they may be more willing to brainstorm
ideas with department leaders to approach faculty staffing and meeting departmental needs
differently.
Collecting More Data
In order to develop better strategic plans, set better faculty staffing and course offering goals,
and articulate how contingency impacts their programs, participants also share how departments
need to have a thorough understanding about their students, faculty, practices, learning and
placement outcomes, in addition to various trends in their field. For this reason, participants point to
Ph.D. programs needing robust data collection practices and express the importance to begin
collecting specific types of information. They find this to be particularly helpful if they are to
address concerns with NTTF, as understanding the big picture would allow departments and fields to
better understand the areas of Ph.D. education that need to be addressed and in turn set better goals
to improve Ph.D. student placements.
The MLA has been doing for years a lot of good work about adjuncts as a profession, but
we’ve got no rubrics, we’ve got no numbers and we’ve got nothing to point to in terms of
accountability and until we start setting some goals and not just doing some things here and
there, and you know, we’re very well intentioned and we do good work and we have
committees and we do reports and we try to change the profession, but I think we’re
humanists and we have not been—we’ve not set concrete and specific enough goals and
timelines and all those things that people are starting to ask for. And I think we have- we
need to shift that a little bit
While quantifiable data and analysis only shows parts of the bigger picture, disciplinary
leaders point to increasing data collection on admissions, placements, best practices, helpfulness of
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 90
dissertation work, and time to degree, as a way to help disciplinary and local leaders better
understand where they stand and the goals they should pursue. However, as seen here, disciplinary
leaders agree that many Ph.D. programs still do not have a mechanism by which they collect data
and do not appear to be held accountable for implementing this practice. “I was talking to someone
today about my pilot program who said I hate to admit this, but at our institution, institution wide,
we don’t even have a tracking system,” explains Linda. Disciplinary leaders share that it is more
common for Ph.D. programs to not have certain types of data, and even when they do, the data is
collected informally, remains within their programs or is not used in more productive ways.
Disciplinary leaders also talk about the importance of making sure departments share and
disseminate data and goals as a way to motivate more departments to set goals and as a way to
communicate and highlight other areas that administrators may not usually express interests in.
I think the other thing that’s desperately needed is for institutions—to report those data and
successful completions to the higher administration who very often say, oh, the only thing
that we want to hear are tenure-track positions. We don’t want to know about community
colleges, high schools, blah, blah, blah. We just want colleges and university tenure-track
positions. Well that’s just nuts.
Here we see that administrators only ask for specific type of data which may explain why Ph.D.
programs do not always collect more sophisticated and accurate data and why some administrators
do not believe contingency is an issue on their campus, as they only see tenure-track placements and
are not receiving information about NTTF placements. By not collecting and sharing additional data,
however, departments run the risk of not clearly communicating and prioritizing areas that
administrators are not always aware of or express concern about, such as a growing number of
Ph.D.’s who are only attaining NTTF positions. By not being proactive and initiating these
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 91
conversations with upper administration, these issues remain unaddressed and programs continue to
be measured by a limited benchmarks.
Disciplinary leaders also agree that with increased data collection and dissemination,
programs can better support each other and develop more creative ways to address specific concerns,
such as a growing NTTF. Raquel agrees that leaders of graduate programs should not only collect
numbers, but also consider how they address specific concerns. If programs were to share how they
individually work to reduce the number of Ph.D.’s who end up as NTTF, then programs could learn
and design best practices and implement better goals to achieve this. Here Raquel provides an
example of how she thinks DGSs can share ways to value teaching in Ph.D. programs.
That DGSs in history, English, chemistry, you know, sociology should share with each other
what their practices are for supporting their graduate students in learning to teach because…I
guarantee you there are programs at—you know, at X university that are better than other
programs and that, you know, the lesser programs have no idea what the better programs are
doing because we are so siloed by disciplines.
By implementing mechanisms to gain more robust data about Ph.D. programs, encouraging
DGS to take on a more proactive role in the types of data they share and disseminate with higher
administration, and by leaders providing a platform where programs can share how they address
their concerns with a growing NTTF with other fields, Ph.D. programs can begin to set better and
more creative goals that may have a great impact on the issue. Beyond institutions mandating data
collection on the local level, Raquel further suggests that disciplinary societies need to work with the
various higher education associations to gain funding to collect more national data that would help
programs have a greater understanding about the issues related to contingency.
Everything that a professional association does costs money to do and is already budgeted for
and there’s no money in the budget for huge sea changes like this, but I do think there’s
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 92
money in higher education for accountability and I think that disciplinary associations could
start taking seriously – taking more seriously the – our responsibilities to all the students as
well as our responsibilities to non-tenure-track faculty members by first counting. I think we
don’t count very much in the higher ed associations and if we got some money from, you
know, the – I don’t know, the Teagles or the Mellons or the Davis or you know, Luminas or
you know, of the world, to sit down and work out where are all the non-tenure-track jobs,
where are the tenure-track jobs, what are the trends in our field, in our disciplines? What do
the graduate programs tell the graduate students? What are the placement rates at various
graduate programs? What are the programs that increase placement rates for their Ph.D.
students? That is, what are the graduate programs that have innovative and interesting alt-ac
placement programs, placement programs into teaching intensive institutions, apprenticeship
programs with teaching, you know, intensive institutions, apprenticeship programs with alt-
ac careers at their own institutions, in foundation work? You know, what are the best
practices and how can we start spreading that and let’s use somebody else’s money
Here by having more robust and sophisticated national data regarding the trends in Ph.D. education
in combination with data from the local context, programs would be better able to brainstorm ideas
to improve the training of Ph.D. students and address contingency concerns.
While the ideas under this theme appear to not all be related to reforming Ph.D. education, it
is clear from the articles reviewed for this study that many departments often hire Ph.D. students to
work as NTTF in instances where their tenured and TTF cannot teach undergraduate courses that
need to be offered. In this sense, the lack of setting faculty staffing goals that is pointed out by
disciplinary leaders in this study does impact Ph.D. education.

REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 93
Theme Two: Implementing Responsible Admission Practices
The second major theme that arises from the data is the need to implement more responsible
Ph.D. admission practices. Disciplinary leaders share the concern with an overproduction of Ph.D.
students as possibly being a contributing factor to the growth in NTTF positions. While participants
share their ambivalence about whether or not they should even address the issue of an
overproduction of Ph.D. students, most participants do point to admission practices needing to more
responsibly reduce the number of Ph.D. students being admitted by considering prospective student
career objectives, the marketability of their specializations, and ways to diversify programs. Mark, a
disciplinary leader, talks about the indecisiveness around the overproduction of Ph.D.’s and
expresses his concern with cutting programs.
if we get any smaller, we will die. There isn’t any smaller to get…And I personally think
that large programs, relatively large programs should reduce in size, not drastically…But
again, I’m not saying go around the country and you know, close programs. I just think
given what we’ve – what we know the job prospects for the people who want the tenure-
track jobs, we are doing everyone a disservice to keep running as if nothing had happened in
the last five, six years.
Here Mark points to the need to reduce the number of Ph.D. students, especially in larger programs,
but stresses the importance of doing this in a responsible manner, as every program is different. If
leaders begin reducing numbers without a responsible plan/strategy then the issue of contingency is
not necessarily addressed and departments will run the risk of not being able to operate successfully
or losing their Ph.D. programs. His response does point to the disservice irresponsible Ph.D.
admission practices can produce such as when programs admit students without thinking about the
realities of the job market and their research interests. By being more strategic and admitting
students with more diverse career objectives in the areas of specializations which are increasingly
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 94
growing and most marketable, programs can begin to reduce the number of Ph.D. students who
would likely end up in contingent positions.
While all participants agree that there is an overproduction of Ph.D.’s, some leaders also
stress the importance of considering students who pursue a Ph.D. for the sake of pursuing a Ph.D.
and express concern with shrinking programs to only serve students who are most marketable for
TTF placements. Gloria, a leader in the field of History says
Some people define the problem as oh, there’s an overproduction of Ph.D.’s which I think is
totally cynical and demoralizing and I don’t know why you would want to define the
problem that way. In my mind, like people pursue Ph.D.’s, you know this, because they
want to pursue Ph.D.’s and so to have somebody come in and be like oh well, you’re not –
you know, you’re not the important part here...Like that’s kind of putting me down. Yeah.
So I think there’s a kind of a – a privilege that that is speaking from, like oh well, we should
– either I should get to decide how many other people are competing for these academic jobs
or you know, well, we all know who the real people who should be getting Ph.D.’s are and if
there are too many other people getting them, then it’s really leaving it – leaving the student
and what the student wants to do out of it in a way that I don’t think is – like I don’t even see
why.
Gloria’s response points to the need for Ph.D. admission practices to me more strategic and
responsible around making sure Ph.D. education does not shut its doors to students who want to
pursue a Ph.D. for reasons other than attaining TTF placements. Recognizing the various reasons
why students pursue a Ph.D. is important to admission practices and if programs admit students who
best match the mission and goals of their programs, then they will likely reduce the number of
students who are only trained for TTF placements at research institutions and as a result end up in
contingent positions. John, a disciplinary also talks about this issue and shares that addressing an
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 95
overproduction of Ph.D.’s is more about making sure students are adequately prepared for various
types of placements within and outside of the academy.
well, should you produce fewer Ph.D.’s? Or if you’re producing Ph.D.’s, should you prepare
them for a broader variety of possibilities, both within the academy and beyond it. Within
the academy, meaning what has to shift to prepare students better for the kinds of jobs in the
academy that are – that sort of – that represent the bulk of positions, and those are not at R1
universities. And then secondly, what are the kinds of things that need to be done to prepare
students for careers outside the academy or outside the professoriate.
Not all Ph.D. programs will want to have inclusive training programs, but if more responsible
admission practices are in effect, then prospective students would be admitted to the programs where
their career objectives are best aligned with the training the various programs offer. Because most
Ph.D. programs tend to advertise their focus on training towards TTF placements, prospective
students might feel pressured to only show an interest in TTF career aspirations for the sake of
admission, even though they may already know they would like to pursue careers outside of
academia or at different types of institutions, such as two and four-year teaching colleges. By Ph.D.
programs recruiting students based on the types of training their programs focus on (non-academic,
academic or both), they can already help reduce the overproduction of Ph.D.’s, as students would
likely apply to those programs that best align with their personal and career goals and would not feel
the need to pursue the more traditional career aspirations for the sake of admission. In turn,
admitting students with career aspirations that best match the training offered in their programs may
help reduce the number of students who end up in contingent positions, as students would be
adequately trained for TTF positions at various types of institutions and/or would also gain training
towards careers outside of academia.

REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 96
Increasing Responsibility Towards Diversity
Implementing more responsible Ph.D. admission practices also involves being more
responsible towards issues of diversity. While diversity was less spoken about by disciplinary
leaders in this study, diversity appears to be an area that may be contributing to the growth of NTTF
appointments and one that needs to be explored further. While only the disciplinary leaders who
previously engaged in work related to issues of diversity in their field spoke specifically to this
subtheme, the silence from other leaders with regards to diversity is just as telling that this is an area
that is often not thought about in graduate education reform efforts and one needing to be further
examined. Disciplinary leaders who spoke about diversity with regards to its impact on NTTF often
point to a lack of responsibility to diversity in admissions, regardless of the fact that
underrepresented students have better track records of attaining TTF positions (mostly due to their
research interests and specializations being more current and topics that attract the most
undergraduates). “I mean, all stats point to the fact that students- Ph.D.’s of color are still getting
jobs, you know,” Raquel, explains. Similarly, Peter talks about his experience in working with
underrepresented Ph.D. students and how they mostly have successful tenure track placements due
to the increased need for more diverse faculty, but more so because their areas of specializations
tend to be the most marketable in the field.
There’s a need for a more diverse teaching pool, but there’s very few faculty who are taking
that as a priority in their own situation. So I have a very unique window into this. So I’ve had
40 students who have worked under me and almost all of them have received tenure track
jobs. Most of them are students of color. They often get the message starting when they’re
undergraduates that there are no jobs. And I haven’t felt that at all. Now, it’s because I’m
working in a field that’s growing and I work primarily with underrepresented minority
students.
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 97
Despite most disciplinary and local leaders knowing that there is a strong academic market for
underrepresented students and the areas they tend to specialize in, disciplinary leaders think most
Ph.D. programs are not always considering this in their admission decisions and unfortunately
continue to struggle with ways to diversify their incoming cohorts. When participants speak about
the experience of underrepresented students in Ph.D. education, their responses point to faculty not
being as intentional about admitting underrepresented students, let alone encourage them to pursue a
Ph.D. degree when the students do not show much interest. Raquel also speaks about her hesitance
in convincing underrepresented students to pursue an academic career when students do not express
a strong interest and when she knows they will have more obstacles and challenges to finish.
the idea of encouraging students to go to graduate school in English who might not otherwise
be so inclined made us a little nervous even if it looked like there were jobs at the other end,
because there are a lot of obstacles to them finishing for one thing, and for other reasons.
Raquel continues to express how interestingly much of the current conversations and efforts to
reform graduate education do not talk about diversity. She says, “The whole grad school debate
doesn’t really take on the politics of communities of color and their needs as directly as it should.”
By graduate programs not prioritizing diversity in their ideas for reform, they may miss the
opportunity to resolve/address some of the concerns with NTTF appointments.
The issue of diversity relates to reform efforts in admissions, especially if disciplinary
leaders aim to address the problem of overproduction of Ph.D.’s as a way of reducing NTTF. If
programs shrink admissions in response to the issue of too many Ph.D.’s, leaders worry that
programs are not as intentional and responsible about admission practices to ensure
underrepresented students are not completely shut off, especially when they typically study the areas
that are growing and most marketable towards TTF positions. When some disciplinary leaders talk
about Ph.D. admissions and underrepresented students, however, they point out specific assumptions
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 98
about underrepresented students that appear to exist among Ph.D. programs leaders/faculty. Rodger,
a disciplinary leader says,
That is absolutely why I do not believe in artificially downsizing these programs, because it’s
an access issue. Because you know, what you what it—almost always comes up is, you know
dramatic downsizing and program closure at second—what would be called second tier
institutions. Often times those are the ones that students of color, people—first generation
students, students from urban areas, there- you know, those are the ones that gravitate
towards because oftentimes they’re less expensive or they’re close to home or its easier to get
funding there
Here, there is concern for access and reducing the number of Ph.D. students. From Rodger’s
response it appears that tensions exist in Ph.D. admission practices between having to meet diversity
goals and also addressing a concern with an overproduction of Ph.D.’s. Rodger explains that in his
experience students of color are less likely to be admitted into elite Ph.D. programs, and are instead
likelier to attend second tier institutions. His concern is that if admission efforts reduce the number
of Ph.D. students, then they will likely reduce the numbers at second tier institutions first, and this
would decrease the number of underrepresented students in Ph.D. education, as most of them attend
these institutions. Raquel also speaks about her concerns with reducing the number of Ph.D. students
admitted and the implications this has for underrepresented students. She says
I worry about what that shrinkage is going to mean. At the same time, I don’t know what to
tell you about how to fix it, you know, I don’t know what to tell you other than that if you’re
not absolutely naming it, its’ no going to get done.
While Raquel understands the need to more responsibly incorporate diversity into admission
decisions and make a commitment to non-traditional specializations, but areas that are growing, she
also expresses that she is not sure how this could be done. If leaders do not consider issues of
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 99
diversity and collect concrete data and information about underrepresented students in Ph.D.
programs, they will likely not prioritize these issues in reform, even though they appear to have great
implications, especially for the increase in NTTF placements.
The needs of the job market are completely—well, are for the most part not taken into
account by departments recruiting their Ph.D. cohort, and that’s because history has been
dominated by traditional US field and Europe. And that’s not what students want to study
anymore. So a lot of the concern about the job market is fueled by, in my opinion,
Europeanist and you know, colonial Americanists who can’t find jobs. Well, of course they
can’t find jobs. That’s not what people want to study anymore, that’s not what—so you know
the needs of the faculty of those departments end up governing who is taken in. They’re all
competing for a smaller and smaller number of jobs while at the same time, areas in which
there’s growth aren’t met by enough people competing for jobs.
While more evidence is needed, participants do suggest that if Ph.D. programs admit a more diverse
pool of Ph.D. applicants and maximize the specialization areas of study that attract the most student
interest, they may help to increase tenure track placements and overall reduce the number of NTTF.
By implementing better admission practices, departments can also address the concerns with an
overproduction of Ph.D.’s more responsibly and in turn maximize Ph.D. student placements and
reduce the number of Ph.D.’s who are inadequately trained and end up in contingent positions.
Theme Three: Redefining Ph.D. Education
The third major theme that arises from the data is the need to redefine doctoral education.
However, disciplinary leaders remain unconvinced as to whether it is necessary to redefine the
Ph.D., and if it is, what areas of Ph.D. education need to be redefined, including the dissertation,
assistantships, and time to degree. One area leaders do agree on is their belief that especially, as the
fields of English and History continue to promote and value careers beyond the professoriate,
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 100
rethinking the purpose and training of M.A. and Ph.D. students is critical. Related to this,
disciplinary leaders also talk about the importance of redefining the Ph.D. scholar. Finally, leaders
point to the importance of defining and having good Ph.D. programs that keep up with current
trends, focus on the most marketable specializations, and align their training with a variety of
placements and the need to shift the culture of faculty. By making all of these differences clear and
working to shift the culture of faculty to embrace non-traditional practices, disciplinary leaders think
students might then make better decisions when considering whether or not to pursue a Ph.D.
degree. This may in turn help to reduce the number of contingent faculty overtime, as students
would gain better placements within and beyond academia.
Distinguishing between the M.A. and the Ph.D.
A major question disciplinary leaders have about the work the AHA and MLA are doing to
promote other valuable careers is why students should even pursue a Ph.D. education and commit to
many years of academic training only to pursue a career they probably could have attained with a
master’s degree? For example, John, a disciplinary leader and a department chair at a public research
institution, expresses his concerns with students who pursue a Ph.D. for positions that do not
essentially require it.
It’s one thing if someone spends four or five years pursuing a Ph.D. It’s another thing if
you’ve ended up giving them an 8 to 10 year detour where, as you say, they land a very good
job, but it’s one where the credential wasn’t essential and the extra skills aren’t really what
are in play.
John continues sharing that when speaking to graduate students who end up in careers outside of
academia, they often express that their dissertation work was vital to the current work that they do.
Even though John encourages Ph.D.’s to explore all types of careers, he still questions whether the
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 101
relevancy of their Ph.D. education holds true. He states that this is still an area that needs to be
explored and should be defined.
I remain somewhat uncertain about- you know, about whether- how true that is or whether
it’s true for everyone and whether what this means is that we need to- either rethink the
dissertation and what it means and how long it takes to complete one or think about this as a
project that, you know, in some ways works simply for Ph.D.’s in the humanities but as I
said, but it’s a project that aims to reconfigure education to open up opportunities that will
serve our B.A.’s well and our M.A.’s well. So- and I say, I think that’s – to my mind it’s an
unsettled question
A major area that distinguishes an M.A. degree from a Ph.D. is the dissertation work. However,
disciplinary leaders remain uncertain about whether or not the dissertation should be redefined, let
alone the overall purpose of a doctoral and master’s degree. However, the lack of defining the true
differences between a Ph.D. and an M.A. and explicitly telling students which degree is best for their
goals, contributes to a growing number of students pursuing a Ph.D. for careers they could have
easily attained with only an M.A. Of course many students still romanticize the idea of a Ph.D. and
pursue the degree despite the realities of the market. However, with more programs being intentional
about the types of training they offer, such as having some programs redefine the dissertation to be
more flexible and relevant to placement goals, it may create Ph.D. programs that attract and serve
students with various placement objectives versus the students who only want to train towards
academic positions. For example, there may be programs which admit students who only seek
training for academic positions, and there may be other programs that train students for both
academic and other types of careers beyond academia which often require a Ph.D., such as a think
tank. If Ph.D. programs redefine the purpose of a Ph.D., students might only apply to those programs
that are best aligned with their goals, which would in theory reduce the number of Ph.D.’s who feel
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 102
pressured to only pursue an academic career or who feel they need to struggle through a Ph.D.
program when an MA would have been most fitting. In this sense, Ph.D. programs would also be
able to shift the culture of faculty and their training to be best aligned with their respective missions.
Rethinking the Identity of a Ph.D. Scholar
Part of redefining the purpose of a Ph.D., would also require rethinking the skills and
qualities that make up a Ph.D. scholar. Kent, a disciplinary leader and previously an adjunct
professor, speaks to the importance of redefining who a Ph.D. scholar should be and the need to stop
misleading students by romanticizing the life of a Ph.D. post-graduation. He says,
I think to me, maybe at the heart of it is kind of an increased honesty about what- like the-
what the identity of a Ph.D. holder is about and what it’s good for and starting to think really
carefully about the way that we privilege a very romantic notion of the scholar.
Clearly defining the identity of a Ph.D. scholar would allow students to make better decisions for
their training and whether or not pursuing a Ph.D. is needed for their career objectives. Of course
this runs the risk that students, who would otherwise be excellent scholars, might not pursue the
Ph.D. degree, but programs would likely have different definitions based on the goals and types of
careers they decide to pursue/promote. Kent continues to explain that most concerning is that by not
clearly defining the different identities of a Ph.D. scholar, programs run the risk of not only
misleading students, but encouraging them to only pursue the most prestigious goals, such as a
tenure track jobs at a research institution, and not value other possibilities that can be just as
prestigious, such as a tenure track position at a teaching institution.
I think that that is not only misleading in terms of creating expectations that then people have
to learn how to-to deal with not ever achieving but I think that it also devalues all the other
things that we learn and how to do and that we should be good at as professional academics,
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 103
like teaching and like service and like practicing in the kind of nuts and bolts governance for
our institutions, you know, being good union people if we’re on union campuses.
Creating Good Ph.D. programs
Part of redefining the purpose of a Ph.D. also involves making sure we have good programs,
or as one disciplinary leaders defines it, programs that maintain their marketability and align their
training with demanded skills which will afford students good placements in TTF positions and
beyond. In other words, what departments and institutions should avoid is creating Ph.D. programs
only for the sake of having a program where faculty can teach what they would like to teach, and in
turn have no set strategies on how to best train students to be competitive in today’s academic labor
market. Patty, a disciplinary leader and a dean at liberal arts institution, says
I think that some of this has to do with making sure that if you’re going to offer a Ph.D.
program, that it’s one that is, you know, that is viable and is actually going to be—position
people to be something more than generalists
Patty shares that at her institution, one of the reasons they did not end up creating a Ph.D. program in
rhetoric and composition was because too many faculty wanted to teach their own specializations
which would have created a program where Ph.D.’s would probably just have been marketable as
adjuncts. She explains that when you redesign Ph.D. programs to train students in the areas that are
most marketable and provide them with state of the art training and skills, then your placements are
no longer mostly contingent.
What we find is that if we can get our M.A. students into Ph.D. programs at virtually any of
the really solid rhetoric/composition programs, they’re all getting jobs when they’re done and
they’re getting good tenure-track jobs. And so my thinking is that, you know, you’ve got to
have good programs. You’ve got to have- and they probably need to be fairly focused and
they need to be- they need to offer the kinds of specializations that we were talking about
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 104
earlier. In my field, they better have a digital piece, they better have an international piece,
and they better have an online piece
Here Patty defines good Ph.D. programs as those that continuously review the market and
implement new types of training to keep the degree relevant and help students develop the skills in
the areas that are most marketable and will likely help them land more TTF placements. Peter points
out that most Ph.D.’s who attain TTF placements are coming from a select number of top Ph.D.
programs.
For a long time, we’ve known that the top 10 graduate programs in the country will end up,
you know, producing a very large percentage of all the Ph.D.’s that get tenure-track jobs.
And so that leads to a whole bunch of other issues. One, it means that there’s a lot of Ph.D.
programs out there that are very unlikely to place almost anyone in a tenure-track job. But
almost none of them will say that.
Here Peter supports what other disciplinary leaders point to about the need to create programs that
more responsibly implement the training needed to adequately prepare students with all of the skills
needed and that support their students in their placements. Most importantly, however, is the
common thinking that other than the top, elite programs, most other Ph.D. programs will not place
all of their students in TTF placements in research institutions. While more evidence is needed here,
having this understanding should motivate programs to then consider training students for other
types of academic and non-academic placements.
Similarly, other disciplinary leaders believe that designing good programs involves making
sure the training is not solely focused on preparing students for TTF positions. Rodger, talks about
the misalignment of training and actual placements and points out that shifting to acknowledge other
types of training is necessary, but programs have not yet defined what that training might look like.
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 105
We continue to produce a lot of Ph.D.’s in English. Now part of the problem that the-
certainly the MLA taskforce document highlights is Ph.D. programs traditionally are
designed really to train people only for tenure-track positions. So that there is- has been a
focus in Ph.D. programs on training a new generation of research active scholars who will be
at a certain type of institution. Yes, teaching, but also spending a considerable part of their
time, you know, working on scholarly articles, books, etc. So to date, there has been too little
emphasis put on what we’re now calling alt ac careers that in Ph.D. in English would be quite
useful for but that are not defined, you know, as one would traditionally around a tenure
track position
Here disciplinary leaders explain how departments are not redesigning programs to consider
different ways an English degree can be useful whether within academia or beyond. Without
exploring these possibilities, programs can only focus on training students towards areas where there
are limited jobs which will contribute to an increasing number of Ph.D.’s who will end up pursuing
NTTF positions
Shifting Culture
Finally, disciplinary leaders feel that part of redefining the purpose of a Ph.D. involves
shifting the culture of faculty within departments to embrace new directions. Rodger says
Ph.D. programs have always been very, very nervous about talking about alt-ac because
somehow it disrupts, you know, the myth that at a Ph.D. program like ours, well, you know,
no one should even have to think about anything other than, you know, a tenure-track job at a
university that’s as good as or better than ours. And I think that’s self-delusion on the part of
English faculty and it’s harmful, you know?
Similar to Rodger’s perspective, disciplinary leaders talk about the difficulty in shifting the culture
of faculty, and in fact, most leaders are not looking to focus on addressing this area directly. Raquel
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 106
points to how disciplinary leaders and local leaders will likely find the most resistance in shifting the
culture of faculty to embrace encouraging students to pursue other types of employment.
I think that the bigger change is – has to be in the attitude of the faculty members who all
trained for the career they’ve got, you know? And so are going to have a hard time telling
students well no, actually you can’t get the career I have…But they have to change the way
they teach and they’re not going to want to do that. And they have to change their values,
and they’re not going to want to do that.
Because of the difficulty in shifting the culture of faculty, disciplinary leaders instead hope that by
focusing on meeting the needs of the students, who are the ones mostly impacted by the market,
faculty norms will begin to shift towards new trainings, definitions, behaviors and practices. Rodger
continues to point to the issues with culture when looking to redefine Ph.D. education.
The barriers really are ones within departments and the desire by departments to conserve-
conserve their own traditions. You know the idea of this is what a Ph.D. program should be,
this is what a dissertation should be…you know conform to a whole host of other things that
you know, really are cultural constructs. I mean, we- these have evolved over time and we
have made these up to some extent. Now granted, they’ve become very real to us but no
one’s keeping us from changing that except ourselves.
Through his example of how traditional practices impact the dissertation, Rodger points to the
culture of faculty within departments as the reason why redefining Ph.D. education is difficult and
explains that much of the culture of faculty is based on old traditions which are not all relevant
today. Cultural constructs can act as a barrier to creating good programs and new scholars. Similar to
ideas presented by Berquist and Pawlak (2008), disciplinary leaders in this study talk about faculty
clinging to a set of assumptions based on the traditional practices, values and beliefs which are
common in Ph.D. programs—valuing tenure track placements, familiarity with research institutions,
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 107
focus on research training, and mentorships focused on helping students gain tenure-track
employment. Because recent changes to doctoral education involve new assumptions that collide
with previous assumptions, faculty are resistant to the changes rather than embracing them. For
example, AHA’s project to promote and value alt-ac careers creates new assumptions that challenge
the previous assumption that tenure-track jobs are the most prestigious. Valuing alt-ac careers calls
for faculty to become accepting and familiar with the various types of career options available to
Ph.D.’s in history and possibly asks that they work closely with different types of organizations and
institutions, to help better train their students. Because this threatens many of the traditional faculty
assumptions, fear and anxiety becomes prevalent, and, therefore, faculty resist change which
presents a challenge in reforming Ph.D. education.
By shifting the culture of faculty we avoid having students who feel their only other option is
to conform to low-paying NTTF positions, when they are not able to attain TTF placements. Gloria
discusses how students see the various options when they are first applying to programs, but then,
due to culture of faculty within Ph.D. programs, students end up feeling like those options do not
longer exist.
you have a sense of a lot of different options when they’re considering graduate programs but
then at some point, and it’s a combination of like cultural factors and atmosphere in
programs as well as kind of when they get really into their research and stuff, then a lot of
times that’s when they’re – they feel like they need to really devote themselves because it is
such a competitive job market in the academic job market. But if they – if they’re thinking
about these other things still, they’re like distracting themselves. So a lot of people lose sight
of those other options along the way and some of it is like a confidence issue and some of it
isn’t, some of it’s a cultural issue like I said.
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 108
Disciplinary leaders find that cultural barriers are probably most problematic especially in redefining
Ph.D. programs to embrace other placement options and training beyond TTF and NTTF. Gloria
says that “the cultural barriers that are causing problems within the academy are kind of preventing
people from feeling comfortable leaving the academy.” By preventing Ph.D. students from feeling
like it is okay for them to consider placements outside of academia, disciplinary leaders feel that
students will continue to pursue and accept NTTF positions when they are unable to attain TTF
placements.
Theme Four: Empowering Students and Faculty
The fourth major theme that arises from the interviews is the need to empower students and
faculty by arming them with the knowledge and information they need to make more informed
placement and mentorship decisions. Participants make it clear that regardless of all of the efforts to
change graduate education, no disciplinary society or department can keep students from pursuing a
Ph.D. degree, let alone from continuing to accept NTTF positions. For this reason a major way
participants hope to address the issue of a growing NTTF both at the disciplinary and local levels is
by encouraging more transparency and providing students and faculty with more knowledge,
resources, and best practices for good and innovative mentorship. This in turn might empower
students to then make more informed decisions about their education and placement goals. At the
same time faculty are also better able to respect student decisions and identify the resources
available to better support students, especially in cases where they do decide to pursue a NTTF
position.
Respecting Student Agency
A subtheme that arises from the data is the need to encourage and respect the power students
have to make their own decisions, especially with regards to their educational and career goals.
Simply because the academic market is shifting towards more NTTF positions, does not mean that
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 109
programs should then strip students from their power to make their own career decisions and force
them to pursue certain types of appointments that benefit Ph.D. program rankings or quit on their
dreams to pursue a Ph.D. degree altogether. Disciplinary leaders in this study recognize that students
often take on NTTF positions because of personal circumstances or because their mentors encourage
taking them on as they continue to work towards attaining a tenure track job. Other students take
them on to have more balance and flexibility due to a family priority, or them not being able to
relocate. Still others take NTTF positions because they enjoy teaching and would rather pursue an
academic position that does not require them to do research. Because students have legitimate
reasons for pursuing a NTTF position, disciplinary leaders think it is more proactive to provide
students with more information about these positons and all other possible options and then respect
student decisions and support them to be successful in their careers.
Respecting student choice. Disciplinary leaders share that the main focus of current reform
efforts is meeting the needs of students, as they are the individuals who are mostly affected by the
academic labor market. When they discuss meeting student needs, most disciplinary leaders speak
about recognizing that students make their own decisions and that those decisions are to be
respected, regardless of what they may mean to faculty or Ph.D. programs. Linda talks about this
being the case in her discipline.
the people that are being most affected by the challenges of the academic market are the
students. So I think all of the programs are really trying to first address the student needs and
you know, figure out how to – what – what needs to be done there to make – to make – one,
is giving students sort of first and foremost more options, or at least the understanding that
they have more options, whether they actually like those options or not, that’s – that’s up to
them. But to give them that understanding and then to give them the support and tools that
they need.
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 110
Disciplinary leaders agree that presenting students with all options and respecting their decisions is
important in addressing an increase in NTTF positions, mostly because students will then decide
what works best for them, as opposed to all of them feeling pressured to only attain a tenure track
placement in order to be considered successful. By not providing students with options and not
respecting their decisions to pursue other types of careers, increasing numbers of students will wind
up pursuing a NTTF position and most of the time for the wrong reasons.
Kent, recently promoted from a NTTF position to an associate professor at a teaching
institution points to this dilemma when he shares how students often tell him they did not pursue a
teaching job like his because their mentors discouraged it.
I have that conversation quite often with graduate students…who will say, you know, that
their – that their mentors pushed them away from positions like this or tell them, you know,
well, you can apply to those but you know, that’s a good place to land for a couple of years
until you get some research done and you can go get a better job. That’s actually the more
common kind of position that graduate faculty seem to take in relation to jobs like mine, it’s
a stepping stone to get somewhere else.
Letting go of the pressure to expect all Ph.D.’s to only land tenure track positions at research
institutions would likely allow students to then consider other types of tenure track jobs, non-
academic positions or even full time NTTF positions that best fit their goals and personal
circumstances. This would in turn likely reduce the number of Ph.D.’s taking on part-time NTTF
positions and would make students be more cautious about taking on the NTTF placements with the
lowest salaries and poorer working conditions. Rodger, agrees and concludes that “after arming
individuals with all the knowledge that we can provide to them or all the information that we can
provide to them, we have to respect their decision making power as adults” He continues to explain
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 111
that its best for faculty to “… [respect] those choices rather than – you know, rather than trying to
keep them from even having a choice.”
Student aspirations towards tenure. While informing students of possible career options
and respecting their decisions is an approach that participants hope will also address the concerns
with a growing NTTF, participants also talk about how we cannot ignore the fact that many students
will still insist on only pursuing TTF positions. This is also a concern for the current efforts to
promote alt ac careers, which is a theme presented at the end of this chapter, but disciplinary leaders
feel that not much can be done about this, except to keep informing students and expecting that some
will be highly disappointed at the end of the process. Rodger, shares his concerns with students who
continue to pursue TTF positions at research institutions.
Nothing’s going to change that for some people. And there will always be some people who
are very, very, very disappointed at the end of that process because there are never going to
be enough tenure-track jobs. There never have been. I mean, there’s never been you know?
There’s always been an over-supply but it’s worse now for sure.
While in theory, the idea of presenting alt-ac careers or even respectable tenure track jobs at
community colleges and liberal arts colleges may decrease the number of Ph.D.’s who then take on
NTTF positions, participants share that students, in their eagerness to pursue a TT job, will likely
still opt for NTTF positions with the hope that they will eventually attain tenure. Disciplinary
leaders like Linda, however, strongly believe that as students understand their misconceptions about
the realities of the market, they may think twice about pursuing TTF and NTTF positions.
But when I explain to students, they start to get it. I mean, they think they’re going to be the
exception but they start to get this basic disconnect between how things have changed and
the assumptions that they make, that okay, I go through a Ph.D. program, hopefully to get a
tenure-track job, I’m going to have the job for the rest of my life, I’m going to get to read
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 112
books and write articles and write books and oh yeah, I’ll have to teach sometimes but you
know, it’s almost a naivety on the parts of the students and it’s, you know, a kind of
ignorance on the part of the faculty
Here Linda acknowledges that both students and faculty will continue to have general assumptions
of Ph.D. education and placement, but stresses that as students are more informed, most will begin to
shift those assumptions towards a more realistic understanding of what Ph.D.’s face post-graduation.
Yet other participants disagree and share that students take risks for the sake of their professional
aspirations. So regardless of how much information and respect we give them with regards to their
career decisions, they are more than likely to still pursue a TT positions and this is something
participants still do not know how to address.
Now, I’ve taught long enough in Ph.D. programs myself, you know, to know that individuals
may always still think that they’re going to be the exception and you can give them as much
information as you can and that they can – you know, can stomach and they’re still going to
make choices that are risky choices having to do with relying upon getting a tenure-track job.
I don’t know other than artificially, again, going back and restricting the number of Ph.D.’s
that we give; I don’t know what to do about that.
Here we see how disciplinary leaders appear to be at a loss when it comes to students who still
pursue TTF jobs despite faculty informing them of the realities. However, Ph.D. programs are still at
a point where a lot of the information is not totally transparent and in a way by hiding information
and by not having more blunt conversations about the realities of the market on an ongoing basis,
they continue to feed students an ounce of hope towards TTF placements. Therefore, disciplinary
leaders talk about presenting a more realistic picture and being more transparent as a possible
solution to better guide those students who will likely not land a TT job towards other fulfilling
careers.
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 113
Informing and Transparency
Some disciplinary leaders share that when faculty and programs romanticize the notion of a
Ph.D. scholar attaining a TT position and shame all other outcomes for Ph.D. students as second tier
success stories, they indirectly encourage students to continue taking placement risks despite what
they may read about with regards to the job market. Disciplinary leaders agree that programs should
not only better inform students and be more forthcoming, but they should provide a comprehensive
picture and stress the harsh realities, while being more transparent about their placement records and
other types of outcomes.
Painting a comprehensive picture. One way to be more transparent is to be all inclusive
about the types of placements that Ph.D. graduates attain. Rather than simply report and make
visible those students who have attained TT jobs at elite research institutions, programs should aim
to share other types of prestigious placements, including TT jobs at all types of institutions and jobs
beyond the professoriate. Gloria shares how her disciplinary society offers a service to collect more
inclusive placement data about their alumni and shares how she reports this on the disciplinary
society website as a symbolic way of communicating the message that faculty value all positions and
to motivate more departments to participate.
So we’ve been encouraging departments to offer comprehensive information about their
alumni. We’ve been offering – we now offer a service for departments and we’ve had like
10 departments sign up already, to track their alumni for them with the understanding that
we’ll share the individual level information with them but then we’re also going to publish
that program level information on our website.
By collecting and sharing comprehensive placement data, students and faculty will likely receive the
message that other types of positions are also valued and will likely reduce student pressure to
pursue a TTF placement at a research institution, which often results in students having to take on
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 114
more NTTF positions on the way to a tenure-track job, even though tenure-track placements are not
guaranteed. Unfortunately, many programs that collect such placement information end up not
promoting all of the placements because administrators only value TTF placements at certain types
of institutions.
I think a lot of programs have that information but they don’t share it. Or if they share it,
they sort of tweak the categories to make themselves look what’s considered good if you’re –
if good is academic placements at research institutions. But if good is we want people to do
a lot of different things, then that kind of reporting is not at all helpful.
By being more inclusive and painting a more comprehensive picture when it comes to placements,
students who are not too sure about pursuing TTF placements at research institutions will likely
consider other types of careers presented to them versus limiting themselves to part time NTTF
placements.
Giving realistic advice. A major area where programs can help address the concerns with a
growing NTTF, is the need to be brutally realistic about the realities of these positions and what they
can essentially mean, for those students who take them on as a stepping stone towards a TT position
and even for those students who take them on permanently. Additionally, part of being realistic
includes redirecting those students who are pursuing a TT position, but who faculty already see will
likely not be competitive in that market (due to lack of publications, a lengthy time to degree or a
specialization that is less marketable) towards other types of careers. Rodger expresses strong
opinions about this as a way to best direct students and reduce the number of NTTF.
I’ve always been about truth in advertising and part of that truth in advertising has to be
about the realities of the job market. The fact that, you know, you’re going to stand well
below a 50% chance of getting a tenure-track job and you know, if – and if you happen to be
in a slump market, you know, you could stand, you know, only a 20% or 30% chance of
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 115
getting a job in terms of a tenure-track job. So – plus there’s the whole backlog of people
who are still looking for jobs who didn’t get jobs last year and the year before and the year
before that
Rodger shares how he also believes students should be aware of the time factor and how this has
implications, whether you chose to remain a NTTF or are hoping to go for a TT placement. He
expresses that students should not be encouraged to remain in a NTTF position for five or more
years.
In other words, yes, if you want to – you’re finishing your Ph.D., you have the year to do –
you have the offer to – an offer to do either a teaching post-doc or you know, you can come
up with, you know, some teaching positions to keep you employed. You know, sure, give it
a shot for a year or two but at some point, don’t let this become your life, unless you want it
to be your life. But don’t expect it to change after you’ve been out for two, three, five,
however many years and you’re running around teaching classes at three different
institutions or four different institutions, you’re barely paying your rent, you don’t have time
to, you know, publish or do anything else.
Other disciplinary leaders talk about discouraging students from even pursuing NTTF placements all
together. Patty a disciplinary leader says, “You want to be candid so they’re not being foolish about
their – their time and their investment.” Aurora also agrees and more thoroughly explains that
Taking on poorly paid contingent positions is not a career plan, is not a life plan. And those
who take them on need to be very aware that the job statistics show that if you’re in a
position of contingency for beyond three years, you’re not getting tenure-track interviews or
offers, accumulating more teaching experience and more publications may not help you to
get to fulfill that goal.
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 116
Disciplinary leaders conclude that not only do continuing students need to be aware of the harsh
realities, but students should be made aware as early as when they are applying to Ph.D. programs.
So that’s rule one is that, you know, from day one when someone is contemplating going into
a Ph.D. program or is applying to a Ph.D. program or on Ph.D. program websites or whatever
else, that we do not in any way hide, you know, what is – you know, is actually out there as
the reality right now for existing Ph.D. students (Rodger, MLA).
Informing students earlier on may help to reduce the romantic notion of a Ph.D. education and help
students make better decisions about their education and career aspirations.
Mentorships
Another subtheme is the importance of informing students via new approaches to
mentorship. As the educational landscape changes and the academic labor market continuously
shifts, disciplinary leaders share that mentors of Ph.D. students more than ever need to change their
more traditional mentorship styles.
so you know, get a mentor in a different department, get a mentor in public policy, get a
mentor in data collection, grant writing, public policy, these are things that I’ve advocated
before in – you know, in articles. That that kind of experience, which you could get while
you’re doing your coursework, you know, certain kinds of professional writing, interviewing
techniques. I mean, things that public humanities jobs or public social science jobs or public
science jobs really, really benefit from and you know, creating yourself a set of mentors who
are not just at, you know, traditional academics.
Not only do traditional mentorship approaches not support non-academic careers, but they are
sometimes even too outdated to successfully support students in attaining TTF placements,
especially as these positions continue to shift in the amounts of governance and advising loads and
new skills required. Related to the concerns of NTTF, new mentorship approaches may also
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 117
encourage Ph.D.’s to gain exposure to training in new and cross-discipline areas which may
encourage Ph.D.’s to explore other career possibilities, but also to create new areas of scholarship
that may even help to create more TTF placements. Rodger shares that students, with the help of
their programs, should venture beyond their traditional academic mentors and develop a diverse
group of mentors to increase their training and knowledge of various types of careers.
I do think that mentorship has to change significantly. I think that in some ways, students,
again, as – I don’t want to say free agents because none of us are free completely but as
thinking self-actualized human beings, they can seek out mentoring relationships outside
their dissertation advisor. They can reach out to individuals in the non-profit world. Ideally,
the department is making those relationships possible by having people come back through
and do talks and run little workshops or giving mini seminars or whatever.
Resources and partnerships. Part of making mentorships more innovative is to encourage
Ph.D. programs to partner with individuals in existing offices and other departments on campus to
create new training directions and maximize networks and support services for both faculty and
students. Disciplinary leaders talk about how often their members are unaware of how offices like
the career center could assist them with placement support. Others share how typically Ph.D.
programs seek to hire NTTF to come teach certain types of courses on a one-time basis, when some
departments and schools on campus may already have full time faculty who have similar skills and
could be open to creating new cross-discipline courses to meet specific training needs and even
develop new areas of scholarship. Gloria talks about new partnerships being a new type of
mentorship.
what they really can do that won’t require any kind of re-training or mental revolution or
anything like that, what they can do is they can establish relationships with their colleagues
at the university and then help the students access what those colleagues have to offer.
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 118
Whether it be team teaching courses or helping to sponsor internships, interdisciplinary
projects that the university has going on, or even just as simple as the career office, right?
Similarly, disciplinary leaders agree that partnering with other offices and departments could
successfully offer a new layer of mentorship that faculty mentors cannot provide.
we’re working on providing departments and maybe grad schools, to expand it – With
resources so that their students, without needing their advisors to know all about this, their
students will have the resources, networks of Ph.D.’s already out there, assistant in making
the transition to how does one network, how does one write a CV, where does one go to look
at the – for these kind of positions?
Providing new types of mentorships via partnerships with different offices and programs, both on
and off campus, can address concerns with a growing NTTF, by allowing students to access
mentoring that goes beyond strictly scholarship and research. Students would be better able to learn
about the relevancy of the skills they gain in their Ph.D. programs and would also encourage the
development of new areas of studies as this type of mentorship would encourage more cross
discipline work.
I don’t think we’re going to get anywhere as long as departments see mentorship as
something that, you know, is all about using the people at your own institution or people in
comparable positions at other institutions just like yours as the mentors for your graduate
students. They’re only going to, again, produce little clones. But mentorship can mean a
student can get graduate credit for placement in the development office of their university,
you know, doing grant writing or something. You can, you know, can get graduate credit for
an internship working in data collection.
Best practices. Participants agree that only disciplinary societies are best at disseminating
best practices for mentorship and making sure training workshops are attended by most faculty,
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 119
especially those who have particularly poor mentorship skills. “And I can see that we would never
reach the people who are doing the worst jobs. They’re not going to show up,” says Linda, referring
to the challenges she sees on the local level. “But if it was something at the discipline – you know,
that the disciplinary society was doing, it might – you know, it could reach them” she continues.
Beyond making sure they reach faculty with new mentorship training workshops,
disciplinary leaders look to provide faculty with best practices guidelines, but suggest that students
do their homework ahead of time. If students expect that faculty support them in considering jobs
beyond TT placements at research institutions, then students should research more about what these
positions entail so that when they meet with faculty, faculty are better able to provide them with
networks and suggestions.
Theme Five: Increasing Advocacy Efforts
The fifth theme that arises from the data is about ways disciplinary leaders think Ph.D.
programs can help promote and increase advocacy efforts for the improvement of NTTF positions.
While more evidence is needed, disciplinary leaders appear to believe that as Ph.D. students gain
more information about the academic labor market and come face to face with the reality of their
career outcomes, they will likely be more inclined to be involved in advocating for improvements to
these positions. Disciplinary leaders appear to believe that advocacy efforts can be encouraged by
diversifying leadership at the disciplinary and local level and by encouraging NTT faculty
involvement as mentors to Ph.D.’s.
Diversifying Leadership
A subtheme is the importance of diversifying leadership at the disciplinary and local level.
While disciplinary leaders mostly share ideas about diversifying leadership to improve Ph.D.
education overall, they do share some ideas as to how Ph.D. programs can diversify leadership to
address a growing NTTF. The first idea is to encourage ways for Ph.D.’s to get involved in
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 120
governance on their campus. This can either be done at the campus level, which is probably most
difficult to do, but can easily be done at the department level. Kent shares that one of the most
important things that Ph.D. programs can do is encourage Ph.D. students to get involved in
meaningful governance of their departments.
The value of that training is that for people who then wind up in contingent positions where
they’re being denied that kind of shared governance access, it makes it a lot more concrete
for them and a lot more persuasive for them to be able to argue about what they ought to
have if they have the terminology with which to argue that, right? It gets them beyond the
kind of like – like the kind of empty signifier of the phrase shared governance and gets them
specific things to be able to argue for and to be able to argue about and to be able to say look,
I’ve done this and we – and I know what – I know – like here’s why we’re supposed to have
something to say about this.
Kent continues to share that if programs do not offer such opportunities for Ph.D.’s, then those who
end up in contingent positions with heavy teaching loads, would not even know they could argue and
negotiate for change. By encouraging Ph.D.’s to participate in governance, students would gain the
knowledge, understanding of the problem and learn how to negotiate terms and advocate for
improvements.
Disciplinary leaders also talk about the importance of bringing individuals who have greater
access to local levels (departments and programs) and also current NTTF into the leadership of the
disciplinary societies so that the brainstorming of ideas to reform graduate education to address
issues of contingency would be more sophisticated. “I think they can probably do a better job if they
really—you know, if they really bring into the leadership and they cultivate in the leadership the
people who want to be agents of change on the local level” says Linda. Disciplinary leaders also
point specifically to need to shift the culture within disciplinary organizations and recruit more
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 121
NTTF to not only be a part of the membership, but also to encourage more of them to participate in
the leadership.
But the MLA membership tends to fancy itself, you know, have a – an idea of itself that’s
old, you know? And we haven’t found a way yet to get adjuncts in English and foreign
languages to all join the MLA and ban together and do activism within the MLA. I feel like
that’s the next thing that needs to happen is we – you know, we have cheap memberships but
if you don’t show them what they can do with those memberships, it’s not going to be able to
produce quite enough. So we’re starting – we’re creating forums on the MLA Commons,
you know, that – to get the issue out there. It comes up constantly certainly in the – in the
meetings that I attend, you know, the executive council meetings but most members of the
executive council, you know, teach at pretty privileged teaching positions. And so it’s a slog
to shift the culture at that level as well.
Here, similar to how it is difficult to shift the culture of faculty in Ph.D. programs, disciplinary
leaders point to the need to shift the culture in the MLA to bring in more NTTF and diversify the
membership and leadership and in turn promote more advocacy for NTTF. Even though MLA is
currently promoting advocacy for NTTF via forums on their website, it appears that disciplinary
societies are still finding it difficult to attract NTTF. Disciplinary leaders add that the ways that more
doctoral students and faculty can get involved not only at the disciplinary level, but in local
foundations and organizations may be through more activist and advocacy work for NTTF
if doctoral institutions come to understand a little better, then they might understand that, you
know, you can put faculty members, graduate students on local foundation grant reading
committees, you know, on advisory groups for local organizations that, you know, really do
some outreach and those become really valuable skills for Ph.D. students to get involved in
that kind of outreach.
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 122
By having Ph.D.’s, department leaders and NTTF be more actively involved at the disciplinary level
and in campus governance and committees, they will gain more awareness about the issues related to
NTTF and could also potentially continue being advocates in cases when Ph.D.’s do attain tenure.
Aurora points to the importance of this, as often times tenure track faculty are not as willing to
support advocating for the improvement of NTTF positions. Here she shares why having TTF on
board is critical.
The other arm is the tenure line faculty and those who do the hiring of the contingent faculty
saying no to the administration. Takes a lot of guts but saying no to the administration. We
will not be – we won’t appoint people to these positions at this pay. It’s unconscionable and
we won’t do it. So it would take faculty to also engage in that kind of activism.
By informing Ph.D.’s about the realities of NTTF positions and by encouraging them to learn how to
effectively legislate for the improvements of their working conditions, new graduates who then
attain TTF positions would be able to better advocate and support NTTF overtime. As the number of
junior TTF who are trained in such ways increases, issues and concerns with NTTF will gain more
traction.
Finally, disciplinary leaders share the idea of possibly having NTTF participate as mentors of
Ph.D. students. “I think the other thing that just popped in my head too is I wonder what that would
look like if there were a way to put adjunct faculty in mentoring positions?” Kent asks. Kent shares
how when he was a Ph.D. student he participated in many of the activities with the Preparing Future
Faculty program and he remembers from one of PFF sites that over 85% of faculty at the community
college are contingent. He says “I expect that they could probably work out a way, because they’ve
done things like this before, to give interested adjunct faculty like one course reassign to mentor
graduate students who might wind up in a position like that and to talk about contingency with
them.”
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 123
By having more adjunct faculty mentor Ph.D. students, students would have increased knowledge
about these positions and would be able to not only dispel many myths about NTTF, but would also
be able to advocate for more ways to incorporate NTTF at other types of institutions.
Organizing Local Action
All of the disciplinary leaders speak about the limitations disciplinary societies have in
mandating changes that might help address the concerns with a growing NTTF at the local level.
They explain that while disciplinary societies can reach the masses, provide multiple types of data,
write position statements and reports and in a way “bless” new directions for Ph.D. education,
department chairs and directors of graduate studies are really the only individuals who can transform
this information into action on their campuses. Patty shares how on her campus, when the
leadership is also involved at the disciplinary level, disciplinary position statements and reports are
more often converted into actual objectives and discussions on their campus. She provides a recent
example and shares how converting statements and principles from a disciplinary society into
institutional goals has resulted in major breakthroughs for their NTTF.
Meanwhile, on our campus, it was actually—became a real and living document. And it
became a set of objectives, not just a set of principles but a set of objectives and- and our
university has, you know, and since its start, has, - had worked towards enacting and making
ever more real these principles and it had been a 10 yearlong process that I think most people
on campus would agree that enormous strides have been made. And so those principles
became actual living objectives.
Patty explains that having local leaders (deans, chairs, and directors of graduate studies) involved at
the disciplinary level would allow for a personal investment and commitment to the issues and
suggestions discussed at the disciplinary level. This would motivate leaders to then engage their
campus communities in having more conversations about ways to address the issues around NTTF
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 124
and incorporate principles and practices into their programs. At her campus, by the leadership
insisting on continuing to set goals towards improvements for NTTF, contingent faculty are now
able to participate in governance which has in turn had major breakthroughs for increases in salary
and the improvement of working conditions for NTTF. Similarly, if more directors of graduate
studies participated at the disciplinary level and converted position statements and reports to actual
goals for their Ph.D. programs, Ph.D. education would be able to set goals to help their students
better navigate their placement decisions and seek improvements to NTTF positions.
Disciplinary leaders can also help encourage departments to set goals at the local level by
giving more direction as to the areas that departments should consider for improvement. Gloria, talks
about the specific skills they agree students should gain in a Ph.D. program to improve their
placement and training.
We don’t want to be telling people oh well, you should go do this other thing, not the thing
you are most interested in doing. So those kinds of four- the communication, teamwork,
quantitative literacy, and the intellectual self-confidence, those are things that’ll help
whether- no matter what you’re trying to do. So they’re just kind of general enhancements to
the curriculum that will really strengthen people’s career tracks, whatever they may be.
Here, Gloria talks about the areas that her disciplinary society has identified as skills those future
Ph.D. students will need to be especially successful as faculty, but really in any other type of career.
By disciplinary societies identifying the best new directions for the field, departments and
institutions are better able to more actively find ways to meet these goals in their own programs.
By directors of graduate studies discussing the work that AHA is doing, for example, and
setting their own objectives to incorporate these enhancements in their Ph.D. programs, we would
see more of the work disciplinary societies do making a difference at the local level and programs
would begin to more actively address the concerns with NTTF.
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 125
Theme Six: Promoting Alt-Ac Careers
Finally, the sixth theme that arises from the data is the need to promote alt-ac careers. While
this is an area that disciplinary leaders focus most on and present as the best solution in addressing
concerns with the academic labor market, these efforts are not necessarily only focused on
addressing concerns with NTTF. However, similar to other suggestions, disciplinary believe that by
encouraging students to consider alt-ac careers, the pool of Ph.D. students available to take on NTTF
jobs may decrease. Linda shares this as the focus of reform in her discipline.
Well, the one thought in terms of the contingent faculty is really to…offer alternatives for
our Ph.D. students then it potentially dries up the contingent faculty supply and so that – that
means, you know, colleges can’t sort of keep exploiting this labor pool. And so I think that’s
– you know, that’s one approach, that’s one possibility. And I think, you know, that’s really
what this career diversity – the emphasis on diversity is about is to – is to help the students
understand that there are other options and they’re – and they – and taking an adjunct
position isn’t their only recourse. So drying up the supply is one – one possible outcome
here.
However, concern with NTTF is only one area of motivation or reason disciplinary societies are
promoting alt-ac Careers. Other areas include their hope that the humanities field can become more
relevant to society by creating new areas of scholarship. Additionally, leaders are also hoping to
discover new skills Ph.D. students will need for both placements within and beyond the academy.
Despite other benefits they hope to gain from reforming Ph.D. programs to promote more types of
careers, leaders do also believe this approach will directly address concerns with NTTF. John
explains how the promotion of alt-ac careers can serve to address the concerns with NTTF by
increasing the number of TTF placements. By making history more relevant and visible in the
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 126
private sector, this may create new specializations and areas of study for Ph.D.’s which can also
increase TT appointments, he says.
In English, there is also a strong push to promote careers beyond the professoriate. Patty
explains how a masters students “learn more and more about the labor context in the country, they –
you know, even those who have an aspiration to a Ph.D. don’t necessarily see themselves doing
faculty like work in the future and they really are begging us more and more for more – more
information about the, you know, alternatives to academic careers.” Patty believes that since
students see the work loads of TTF and NTTF increase, students are less attracted to these positions.
“I think sometimes our graduate students watch that and they think what in the – why in the world
would I want that life? It’s just crazy. And so I don’t know, I think that they maybe – the next
generation is going to be aspiring to something different,” she predicts.
Despite students, especially those in masters programs, starting to show more interest in
careers outside of the professoriate, Mark shares that his experience with Ph.D. students has been
quite the opposite. He says
Some of the people most opposed to alt-ac remedies would be the people about to get their
Ph.D.’s. They really felt betrayed that, you know, look, the idea here was we were training
specifically for jobs as research faculty, maybe teaching faculty some of us, or maybe some
combination. But we are not training to go into non-profits or libraries or you know,
lobbying or what have you.
Mark agrees that perhaps offering an assistantship in a different office or in running a program is a
decent compromise, and stresses the importance of graduate programs acknowledging that “there are
going to be pipelines to jobs outside of academia and not just in the digital humanities but in all
kinds of, you know, meaningful professional employment”.
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 127
Disciplinary leaders talk about both MLA’s and AHA’s current efforts in piloting programs
and experimenting with various workshops and enhancements to Ph.D. education. While it is too
soon to see if this direction will have a direct effect on a growing NTTF, leaders do express hope to
see its effectiveness in cultural shifts to embrace new directions for Ph.D. education and in a reduced
number of NTTs. While promoting Alt Ac careers encompasses many areas, the following are
subthemes most closely related to addressing concerns with NTTF.
Celebrating Alt Ac Careers
As seen in earlier themes, students often express the lack of validation or support for careers
beyond the professoriate. Disciplinary leaders share that a way that AHA is working to shift these
ideas, is by validating careers beyond the professoriate via articles written by prominent leaders in
the field.
And that’s part of why the AHA’s leadership is so important, having somebody like [Rob]
who’s such a distinguished faculty member at [an elite institution] --You know, write with
[Wayne] that article about no more plan B, kind of a way of authorizing a discussion. And
that – for a lot of people, that’s kind of like the beginning – that’s like the – a really
important step, even though it isn’t actually doing anything on the ground, if you see what
I’m saying.
Other ways that AHA is working to validate alt-ac careers is by celebrating all types of
placements on websites and by encouraging more transparency.
We often, you know, very proudly trumpet our relative successes in placing students in an
academic position, we need to do better by also learning to trumpet our successes in placing
students in other kinds of employment as well. Which I think too often, and the AHA I think
discovered this, too often, many schools either try to bury their records, don’t provide a – you
know, a real transparency so the incoming students know what the situation really is, or don’t
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 128
I think take pride in – in the fact that many students do other things that have valuable and
important contributions in those other things they do. Instead, those tend to get buried away
and don’t appear on any of the statements that departments put forward about what their
graduates are up to.
By validating new career pipelines for Ph.D. students and being more transparent about alumni
placements in all types of careers, Ph.D. programs then in a way develop a new ways to
acknowledge and measure success. This may have implications for ways in which administrators
and faculty also view success, reducing the current tendencies to collect misleading or incomplete
data about our Ph.D.’s. In relation to NTTF, celebrating all types of careers and validating their
worth, may encourage more of them to consider these options more seriously and not feel limited to
only pursuing NTT positions when TT placement is not attained. Additionally, celebrating all
careers and presenting complete data to administrators might help to shift the culture of faculty and
create new and innovative directions for Ph.D. programs.
Dismantling Fear in Students and Faculty
Another major subtheme that is related to NTTF is the need to dismantle fear in students to
discuss career options that are not TT placements at research institutions. By students fearing
conversations with their mentors in these areas, students miss out on opportunities for more guidance
and suddenly find themselves in NTT placements with no clear direction as to how to best navigate
their careers thereafter. Disciplinary leaders point to student and faculty assumptions as the culprits
in creating this fear amongst Ph.D. programs and share stories about their students admitting that
they feel faculty will disown them or cut their funding support if they find out they are not interested
in TT placements.
what I’ve learned so far is these students don’t feel very supported in that and they’re
reluctant to share with their – with their faculty advisors or even with their friends in the
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 129
program what they’re doing, because they feel like they’re – they’re disappointing or they’re
going against the rules or something like that. So that – you know, we’ve got to definitely
change that because I mean, people who are out there hustling and making a success of
themselves should not be – should not be feeling ashamed.
Fear is not only present on the part of the students, but faculty also fear that enhancements to
training may somehow disrupt traditional order. Often times because they may not be as
knowledgeable about the benefits of training outside of teaching and research assistantships, faculty
are quick to discourage students out of fear that they may be doing students a disservice. John shares
a story about one of their students doing an internship on urban redevelopment in a different city
So on the one hand, it’s an internship and I know that one of his mentors was discouraging
him from taking it because he feared that this would sort of expand – extend his time to
degree and he wouldn’t be working on his dissertation and be sidetracked. But I feel like on
the – you know, he’s getting actually – he’s collecting materials that could be valuable to his
research and at the same time, sort of gaining experience that could help him sort of – Go in
other directions if that’s where he decides he really wants to head. So I think those – that
sort of, to me, represents how the ideal form would work.
Here, while the faculty member has valid concern as to how an internship away from the program
may add to the students’ time to degree, the faculty misses an opportunity to support his student
through an opportunity that is directly related to his dissertation work. By faculty being more open
minded to different types of training and understanding how they can further students’ research,
students may be more inclined to work with their mentors in designing areas of training that may
lead to prestigious opportunities and good placements.

REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 130
Summary of Findings
This chapter presents the data taken from seven disciplinary leaders and three adjunct faculty
(two who were recently promoted to TTF) in the field of English and History to answer the question:
How are disciplinary leaders in the fields that have had labor market shifts dramatically from tenure
track to non-tenure track (English and History), responding with changes in terms of doctoral
education and training? Disciplinary leaders brainstorm some ideas to specifically address the
concerns with a growing NTTF via Ph.D. education reform. These ideas fall into six major themes
and their subthemes, including being more responsible and intentional in planning, implementing
responsible admission practices, redefining Ph.D. education, empowering students and faculty,
increasing advocacy efforts, and promoting alt-ac careers.
The first theme, discusses the need to be more responsible and intentional in planning,
including setting more responsible faculty staffing and curricular offering goals, as a way to better
project the long-term needs of the department and in turn reduce an overreliance on NTTF. Under
three major subthemes, disciplinary leaders point to the inconsistencies and reluctance with regards
to planning and setting faculty staffing and curricular goals, the need to communicate trends and
concerns about NTTF with the administration and the need to collect more data about programs, if
they are to reduce their overreliance on NTTF. While this approach appears to mostly impact
undergraduate education, this is related to graduate education in that many departments are hiring
Ph.D. students as NTTF.
The second theme points to the need to implement more responsible admission practices to
address an overproduction of Ph.D.’s. This involves having committees conduct holistic reviews of
applications and paying particular attention to areas of specialization and career goals and how they
align with the goals and training offered in the program to more responsible reduce the number of
Ph.D. students. Leaders also talk about the importance of further considering diversity in admissions
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 131
and how it relates to NTTF concerns. However, more evidence is needed to know whether or not
diversity plays a role in the increase in NTTF placements. Regardless, it seems that by simply
increasing the responsibility towards diversity in Ph.D. admissions is unlikely to result in more TTF
placements. Even though disciplinary leaders talk about underrepresented students appearing to have
better TTF placement records and how they study the areas within the fields that are most
marketable, currently there is not sufficient evidence for this and the numbers continue to show that
TTF placements are decreasing.
The third theme focuses on the need to redefine Ph.D. education, including distinguishing
between the Ph.D. and MA degree, rethinking the identity of a Ph.D. Scholar, creating good
programs (or programs which maintain their training and specializations current with the changes in
the educational and social landscapes and align their purpose with their goals and training of Ph.D.
students) and shifting the culture of faculty. By redefining the purpose of Ph.D. education, students
may make more informed decisions from the time they are considering applying to Ph.D. programs
and would clearly understand the expectations should they embark in an academic career path. By
creating good programs, disciplinary leaders believe the overproduction of Ph.D.’s would be
addressed and might prevent the creation of additional Ph.D. programs that are not necessarily
needed. Finally, redefining the purpose of a Ph.D. education also involves working towards shifting
the culture of programs, and especially faculty, to be accepting of new directions and practices to
support the various career options for Ph.D.’s and in turn encourage students to pursue other career
alternatives beyond NTTF placements.
The fourth theme discusses the need to empower students and faculty, especially when it
comes to providing them with the information and knowledge they need to make better placement
decisions. Disciplinary leaders talk about the challenges they face in respecting students’ placement
decisions, especially when most of them insist on pursuing TTF positions, despite the harsh realities.
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 132
Disciplinary leaders also talk about the importance of remembering that Ph.D. students are adults
and able to make their own decisions, and that the only area they can really change to help improve
their decision making is by painting a comprehensive picture that includes and celebrates all types of
employment and by being more upfront and transparent about the realities of them landing TTF
placements and what it means to be in a contingent position. Additionally, leaders talk about the
importance of creating more innovative mentorship approaches that serve to expose Ph.D.’s to other
departments and offices on campus. Not only do disciplinary leaders believe this will expand Ph.D.
student networks and offer them additional support services, but these partnerships and new
resources may encourage the development of new cross-discipline areas of scholarship which may
offer new types of training and expose students to other opportunities. By exposing students to other
offices and departments, students may seek new employment possibilities and be better able to
understand how their skills translate in careers outside the professoriate. Finally, leaders conclude
with the importance of disciplinary societies paving the way in communicating and offering training
in best practices for mentorships. This would further encourage faculty to begin shifting from more
traditional mentorship approaches and consider new innovations and information to ensure their
mentoring is up to date and relevant to even new directions and skills for TTF.
The fifth theme discusses the need to increase advocacy efforts for NTTF within Ph.D.
programs. While this theme needs further evidence, as most leaders spoke about the general ways in
which disciplinary societies serve as advocates, they do present the idea of having more Ph.D.
students and directors of graduate studies serve on committees at the discipline society level and
within their local contexts. By allowing Ph.D. students to get more involved in governance during
the time they are in graduate school, Ph.D. students are likely to not only gain the negotiating skills
they will need to be able to bargain for better working conditions and salary for themselves or future
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 133
colleagues, but they will also likely want to get more involved in advocacy and activist work for the
improvement of these positions. Finally leaders talk about the possibility of having NTTF serve as
mentors for Ph.D. students, as this would expose students to what these positions look like at various
institutions, at the same time that it would serve to further integrate NTTF to be more involved with
Ph.D. education.
The last theme presented discusses the current reform efforts at the disciplinary level to
promote and value careers beyond the professoriate. While leaders focus on this theme the most, as
this is an area they have thought more thoroughly about, most of the ideas they share do not
necessarily serve to address the concern with a growing NTTF. Some leaders, however, do talk
about two areas that they feel address a growing NTTF, including the need to celebrate alt ac careers
and the importance of dismantling the fear that students feel when wanting to discuss “alternative”
career options with their mentors. By celebrating all types of careers via department and disciplinary
society websites, articles and enhancements in Ph.D. education, leaders feel that students will start to
be more inclined to pursue different types of careers and not feel as pressured to only pursue TTF
placements. Additionally, by further discussing alt-ac careers and by better informing faculty about
these careers and providing them with resources, students may be less fearful to discuss other career
goals and faculty would in turn feel more confident about ways they can encourage students to
explore these areas further. This may also allow students and faculty to have more open discussions
about NTTF appointments and what these actually mean and look like and the implications these
have for different types of career objectives.
While many of the ideas that leaders brainstorm are not yet implemented or do not have
formal plans to be implemented anytime soon, they do provide Ph.D. programs with general
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 134
directions and areas that need to be further studied and considered to address their concerns with a
shifting academic labor market.
Figure One: Strategies for Ph.D. Program Reform to Address Concerns with NTTF

REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 135
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Introduction
The other big challenge I see is being reactive instead of being, you know, trying to take
charge of the issue more and being active in addressing it. It’s really just – it’s part of this,
you know, disconnectedness. I was in Washington DC for a week and we heard a gentleman
who’s been really trying to get attention to this problem in this – in the history field – for a
long time and he said that he thought that the world had wanted historians more than
historians had wanted the world and I think that encapsulates part of the issue here is, you
know, it’s very attractive and it’s been relatively easy for academics to sort of stay away
from the fray and the changes and the chaos but the chaos has come – has come on campus.
This quote from Linda, a disciplinary leader, sets the tone for this chapter. Her response
suggests that local leaders have previously taken a more reactive approach to addressing issues
concerning contingent faculty, as leaders have not felt the pressure to address the issues differently
until more recently. As discussions about the implications of a growing NTTF increases and as
disciplinary leaders brainstorm ideas to keep the humanities field relevant and marketable to an
increasingly diverse student population, taking on a proactive approach in Ph.D. education reform to
specifically address some of the concerns with the academic labor market shifting towards NTTF is
critical.
This study aimed to answer the research question: How are disciplinary leaders in the fields
that have had labor market shifts dramatically from tenure track to non-tenure track (English/
Composition and History), responding with changes in terms of doctoral education and training?
After analyzing the data collected from interviews with seven disciplinary leaders and three adjunct
faculty (two of who were recently promoted to TTF), six major themes arise from the data and were
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 136
presented in chapter four. This chapter provides a synthesized review and interpretation of those
findings, their contributions to the literature on graduate education, and the implications they have
for disciplinary society leaders, and local department leaders. Finally, the chapter concludes with
suggestions for future research.
Summary of the Findings
Through the analysis of ten interviews with seven disciplinary leaders and three adjunct
faculty, this study attempted to understand how disciplinary leaders respond with changes in terms
of doctoral education and training to address the shift from TTF to NTTF. Using a grounded theory
approach, six major themes and fifteen subthemes arise from the data which suggest different
strategies for change within Ph.D. education to address growing concerns with the shift from TTF to
NTTF placements. As displayed in Figure One below, the six themes include: (a) being more
responsible and intentional in planning, (b) implementing responsible admission practices, (c)
redefining Ph.D. education, (d) empowering students and faculty, (e) increasing advocacy efforts,
and (f) promoting Alt-Ac careers. The fifteen sub-themes include (a) breaking reluctance to set
goals, (b) communicating contingency issues to administration, (c) collecting more data, (d)
increasing responsibility towards diversity, (e) distinguishing between the MA and Ph.D., (f)
rethinking the identity of a Ph.D. scholar, (g) creating good Ph.D. programs, (h) shifting culture, (i)
respecting student agency, (j) informing and transparency, (k) mentorships, (l) diversifying
leadership, (m) organizing local action, (n) celebrating all careers, and (o) dismantling fear in
students and faculty.

REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 137
Figure One: Strategies for Ph.D. Program Reform to Address Concerns with NTTF

Role of Disciplinary Society Leaders and Local Leaders in Ph.D. Education Reform
While this study specifically asked how disciplinary leaders respond with changes to Ph.D.
education to address a growing NTTF, I was surprised to learn that disciplinary leaders direct most
of their ideas at local department leaders, but rarely expressed new ideas that involved their
collaboration with local leaders. I was also surprised that leaders had not been thinking about
doctoral education reform as an avenue by which they could to respond to the concerns with NTTF,
when in fact, PhD students are the individuals mostly affected by this shift in the market. In fact
most disciplinary leaders’ ideas for doctoral education reform were often shared separately from
their ideas to address concerns with NTTF. In other words, only when disciplinary leaders spoke
about how they generally address concerns with NTTF (that is without focusing on Ph.D. education
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 138
reform), did they discuss disciplinary societies’ efforts, which include promoting NTTF forums on
their websites, producing positions statements about NTTF, providing benchmarks and guidelines
for best practices and policy implementation, and encouraging the creation of more task forces and
committees to address various NTTF concerns. However when disciplinary leaders spoke about
reforming Ph.D. programs to address the problems with a growing NTTF, they would shift their
ideas towards departments chairs and expressed that local leaders are the individuals who could best
brainstorm ideas for Ph.D. education reform, as they are most familiar with local departments,
administration, faculty, and students.
Considering that half of the disciplinary leaders in this study are also currently deans or
department chairs at their own institutions, may also explain why disciplinary leaders in this study
frame their ideas separately (in a national and local context); as both disciplinary leaders and deans
and departments chairs, they are likely brainstorming ideas to address the issue of a growing NTTF
both within their local and national contexts, so those ideas could have very well informed their
responses during the interviews and they may have not yet been thinking about bridging both
contexts. Disciplinary leaders did briefly allude to the limitations of their roles which mainly focus
on providing new directions, benchmarks, guidance, resources and information for their field and
explain how their role is not necessarily to mandate changes to Ph.D. education within local
institutions or programs. However, I found it interesting that disciplinary leaders feel their role limits
their ability to encourage changes at the local context; if their role is to pave the way for new
directions in the field, and to provide its membership with resources and guidelines, this tells me that
they have the capacity and leadership to support local leaders in implementing change in doctoral
programs. Even more interesting to me was how disciplinary societies that have been brainstorming
ways to address concerns with a growing NTTF, but most of their ideas are limited to their members
and are not yet ideas that expand to reforming PhD programs at the local departments.
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 139
In looking at the similarities between the outcomes of previous reform efforts and the ideas
shared in this study, it appears that in addition to the culture faculty being a barrier to change, a
disconnect between disciplinary and local leaders may also be a critical barrier to how changes are
implemented in PhD programs, and especially as they relate to addressing concerns with a NTTF.
Since doctoral programs train future scholars, but function autonomously and receive limited
oversight from administration, disciplinary societies then play a critical role in defining the future of
doctoral education and in helping the local leaders to develop systematic approaches to implement
such changes in individual PhD programs.
Because disciplinary leaders do speak about ways in which their organizations are generally
addressing the shift from TTF to NTTF, the fact that disciplinary leaders direct their ideas in this
study to leaders at the local level, does not necessarily imply that disciplinary leaders are
intentionally reluctant to address the issues of contingency altogether. Instead this study suggests
that disciplinary leaders are not yet addressing issues of contingency via Ph.D. education reform and
instead believe that such approach may be best done locally and within programs, with some
guidance from disciplinary society leaders. However, this does suggest the need for disciplinary
society leaders to first acknowledge the need to collaborate more with local leaders and second to
help them implement more systematic approaches for change at the local level that might help
address the concern with a growing NTTF.
Findings Point to Strategies for Change to Address Concerns with NTTF
The ideas that disciplinary leaders brainstorm in this study point to six possible approaches to
reforming Ph.D. education that best address the concern with increasing NTTF placements. The
fifteen sub-themes point to general areas within the strategies that leaders should consider when
addressing the issues with a growing NTTF. By further developing and applying these strategies for
change, disciplinary leaders posit that Ph.D. programs may begin to see improved data collection
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 140
practices, effective and ongoing strategic planning, responsible admission practices, increased
diversity, increased transparency, a clearer purpose and improved mission for Ph.D. education,
increased cross-disciplinary scholarship, innovative mentorships, and a shift in how Ph.D. education
values alt-ac careers. These changes may in turn help to more responsibly reduce the increasing
number of incoming Ph.D. students, reduce the number of NTTF placements, and increase the
advocacy efforts for the improvement of NTTF positions.
Beyond the strategy to promote and value alt-ac careers, the other five strategies this study
suggests have not necessarily been implemented, at least within the fields of English and History.
Therefore, more evidence is needed to know whether or not the findings in this study will actually
result as disciplinary leaders believe— the reduction of Ph.D. students, NTTF placements and/or the
improvement of the contracts and working conditions of NTTF. Examining the reasons why such
ideas have not been implemented is beyond the scope of this study, but as discussed above, this may
be due to the disconnect between disciplinary societies and the local context. Disciplinary leaders in
this study also point to the difficulty local leaders face with regards to implementing such changes in
Ph.D. education and point to most departments being reluctant to shift the culture within Ph.D.
education one of the reasons. However, as outlined in Table Five below, the strategies this study
suggests do appear to be consistent with the findings from the previous reform efforts discussed in
chapter two. The similarities between the findings from previous studies and this study add a level of
validity to the current findings, but most importantly also suggest the need for disciplinary leaders to
take a more active role in guiding and supporting local leaders to implement changes; considering
there has not been significant differences in the findings from various reform efforts overtime, points
to possible challenges or problems with implementation of changes. Additionally, Table Five also
highlights four new findings, three of which have only been suggested in one previous study. The six
strategies are discussed in the next sections.
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 141
Table Five
Comparisons of Findings from Ph.D. Reform Efforts

Findings

Preparing
Future
Faculty

Re-
Envision
ing the
Ph.D.

Toward a
Responsiv
e Ph.D.
Project

Carnegie
Initiative
on the
Doctorate

Survey on
Doctoral
Education
and Career
Preparation

MLA
Task
Force on
Doctoral
Study

AHA
Career
Diversity
Project

Current
Study
Increasingly Complex Assistantships X X
Improve Teacher Training/Pedagogy X X X X
Multiple/Innovative Mentorships (diverse
mentors on and off campus)
X X X X X X
Cultivate Partnerships On and Off Campus
(Expanding Resources On and Off Campus;
Career Services for Ph.D.’s, Assistantships,
Off campus mentors)
X X X X X X X X
Promoting Alt-Ac Careers X X X X X
Increasing Assessment and Evaluation
Practices
X X X
Aligning Practices with Mission and Purpose X X X X X X
Increasing Transparency (Clear Expectations
of Ph.D. Scholar, Placements, Reality of Job
Market, Changes in Educational Landscape,
Faculty Roles and Skills)
X X X X X X X X
Increase cross-discipline training/work X X X X X X X
Empower Faculty with Resources/Shifting
Culture of Faculty to Embrace Non-Traditional
Careers and Training Enhancements
X X X X X X X
Bridging Research and Teaching X X X X X X
Increasing Discussion of Reform at the Local
Level
X X X X
Increasing Training in Service/Governance X X X
Increasing Responsibility Towards Diversity
(Admission Practices)
X X
Setting Curricular and Staffing Goals X
Increasing Advocacy for NTTF X X
Improving Data Collection Practices X X

First Strategy: Being More Responsible and Intentional In Planning
The first strategy is the importance for department leaders to engage in an ongoing practice
of developing long-term strategic plans to improve the quality of programs and be less dependent on
hiring NTTF. While most of this planning has more to do with undergraduate education and
departmental need, faculty staffing and curricular offering is related to Ph.D. education, especially as
departments increasingly hire Ph.D. students as NTTF. When speaking about strategic planning,
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 142
disciplinary leaders in this study mainly refer to setting curricular (course offering) and staffing (or
the selection of faculty to teach courses) goals with few mentioning the importance of also
developing strategic plans that align well with the mission of their departments and institutions. This
strategy also involves considerations for department heads communicating issues of contingency to
their administration and the importance of developing more formal and systematic data collection
practices for Ph.D. programs. The idea is that by having clear and developed strategic plans which
outlines the overall program mission and goals and projects curricular offerings and the faculty
staffing over the next few years, department heads are then better able to identify gaps between the
availability of their TTF and the courses the departments need to offer and communicate such gaps
to their administration as a problem. This approach would allow departments heads to more
proactively work with administrators in developing better solutions than to reactively depend on
hiring NTTF. Taking a more proactive approach to faculty staffing would, in turn, limit the number
of NTTF placements available and could potentially then encourage administrators to either create
more TTF lines or improve the contracts of NTTF.
Despite disciplinary society leaders sharing this strategy as critical, they mostly focus on the
reluctance department leaders and faculty show with regards to implementing a culture of planning.
In other words, disciplinary leaders do not necessarily provide ideas on how they can help
department leaders break their reluctance to implement these practices, and instead disciplinary
leaders in this study focus on the reasons why they believe setting clear staffing and curricular goals
can be beneficial to departments by either reducing the number of NTTF placements or by providing
department heads with the opportunity to negotiate for better NTTF contracts with their
administration.
This strategy also implies the need to mandate more data collection for Ph.D. education. In
order to develop improved mission statements, effective strategic plans, set better curricular, staffing
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 143
and training goals, and be able to better communicate to administrators the concerns with
contingency, having access to robust data about Ph.D. programs is critical. Participants share that
currently Ph.D. programs do not have formal mechanisms by which they are mandated to track
Ph.D. program data, such as student placements, and share how administrators often only request
TTF placement data from Ph.D. programs which may explain why departments lack placement data
on Ph.D.’s who pursue non-academic careers or NTTF placements. This may also explain why
programs refrain from sharing all placement data with their current and prospective students; if
departments see that the administration only values TTF, then departments will be less likely to feel
comfortable sharing other types of placement successes. Most importantly, without data on Ph.D.
student placements and Ph.D. programs (including faculty, courses and training offered, time to
degree, etc.), programs are not able to completely understand the impact an increase in NTTF has on
their students, faculty, placement outcomes, and on their overall program. Therefore, by not
implementing better strategic plans, staffing and curricular goals, and by not developing better
tracking mechanisms, department leaders continue to increasingly depend on NTTF and continue to
miss opportunities to communicate to the administration how contingency impacts their programs.
This strategy points to disciplinary society leaders needing to work closer with deans and
department chairs to provide them with additional guidance and resources on strategic planning and
setting goals and explain to local leaders that the motivation behind such actions is to help address
concerns with a growing NTTF. Second, the findings suggest that disciplinary societies can also
help develop mechanisms by which institutional leaders can best mandate departments to track Ph.D.
student placements and other helpful data and in turn encourage departments to communicate how
contingency impacts their Ph.D. students and programs. Additionally, disciplinary leaders can lead
efforts to work with higher education associations to implement mechanisms to collect more robust
national data on Ph.D. student placements and outcomes.
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 144
While more evidence is needed to know if this strategy would result in the reduction of
NTTF placements, it may be that beyond improved planning mechanisms, the greater issue more
related to the difficulty in implementing such changes because there is a lack of acknowledgement
that other factors, such as funding or an overproduction of Ph.D.’s, lead to the hiring of NTTF.
Additionally, there may be difficulty in connecting this strategy to the strategies mentioned below
that also impact the hiring of NTTF. By leaders connecting these strategies and also considering
other factors that impact the hiring of NTTF, like funding, this approach might then better address an
overreliance on NTTF and department hiring practices.
Second Strategy: Implementing Responsible Admission Practices
The second strategy is connected to the need to address an overproduction of Ph.D. students,
which some disciplinary leaders believe contributes to the increase in NTTF placements.
Disciplinary leaders in this study agree that some of the larger Ph.D. programs that are admitting 15
or more students should consider reducing their size, but stress that reducing the number of students
admitted to Ph.D. programs should be done responsibly, as the problem is not just a question of
numbers. Instead, by implementing responsible admission practices, including closer examination of
applicants’ research interests, career objectives, and diversity (both ethnic/cultural diversity and
areas of study), faculty committees are better able to admit a smaller, but more diverse group of
students with career and personal objectives that best align with the expectations and training of the
programs and the needs in the field. By only selecting the students with career goals that best align
with the program’s mission and the types of training offered, faculty could better support and train
Ph.D. students and would likely see less students leaving the program and produce less Ph.D.’s who
end up in NTTF positions.
This strategy also points to racial/ethnic diversity possibly playing a role in the reduction of
NTTF placements. While some of the disciplinary leaders in this study who have extensive
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 145
experience working with diverse student populations speak to how underrepresented students have
better outcomes in the academic job market than do other students, they only explain that this is
mostly because underrepresented students tend to study areas that are most marketable and also
because institutions are looking to diversify the professoriate. Participants point to concerns with
low numbers of underrepresented students admitted to Ph.D. programs and also discuss the
challenges underrepresented students face in finishing their Ph.D. studies. Since the number of
Ph.D.’s who are underrepresented students is smaller in comparison to Ph.D.’s from other
racial/ethnic backgrounds, underrepresented students may appear to have higher success rates at
attaining TTF placements. Regardless, it is unlikely that we will see any increases in TTF
placements by simply increasing the number of underrepresented students in Ph.D. programs.
Overall, more evidence is needed to understand how students’ racial/ethnic backgrounds play
a role in Ph.D. placements, if any, and whether or not this may help address issues with a growing
NTTF. Disciplinary leaders however, can improve Ph.D. admission practices by collaborating with
faculty and developing best practices guidelines to help departments admit a more diverse group of
students with career and personal goals that align best with the respective Ph.D. programs to which
they apply.
Third Strategy: Redefining Ph.D. Education
The third strategy points to the need to redefine Ph.D. education, including the need to
distinguish between the MA and Ph.D. degrees and define what a Ph.D. scholar exemplifies.
Additionally, disciplinary leaders in this study point to the need for department leaders to make sure
their Ph.D. programs are “good programs” or as one participant described, programs that focus on
growing in the most relevant and marketable concentrations and providing students with state-of-
the-art training, such as cross-discipline experiences and scholarship, innovative mentorships and
partnerships with other institutions and off-campus organizations, teaching and research
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 146
development, and training for a variety of faculty roles and appointments at various institutions. A
general and consistent definition of a good Ph.D. program is not clear from this study and suggests
there is a need for disciplinary leaders to define what good Ph.D. programs should exemplify. Most
participants often explain that Ph.D. programs offer training solely based on the previous
experiences of faculty and what they want to teach, which limits the training of Ph.D. students to
only include more traditional practices and ignores the need to train faculty to meet the needs of a
constantly changing educational landscape. Disciplinary leaders believe each program should
explicitly define the purpose of a Ph.D. education, the type of scholars they expect to produce, and
the types of training offered, as having clear definitions and expectations would best direct students
to initially select the programs that are best aligned with their goals and in turn produce Ph.D.’s who
are more marketable in either TTF placements or in non-academic placements. Making sure students
are clear about why they are pursuing a Ph.D. and understanding how the degree is essential to their
goals is critical, especially when most Ph.D. programs invest a lot of funding to support the work of
their doctoral students.
This strategy includes the need to shift the culture of faculty to embrace new directions for
Ph.D. students in terms of placements. Disciplinary leaders point to the difficulty in shifting the
culture of faculty mainly because Ph.D. programs preserve the traditional purpose of doctoral
education which was mainly based on the importance of scholarly research productivity. By not
embracing new directions and enhancements to Ph.D. education, however, Ph.D. students miss the
opportunities to pursue other career options and instead those who do not gain TTF placements will
likely pursue NTTF appointments. Disciplinary leaders hope that by meeting student needs via
changes to graduate education, the culture of faculty will slowly shift.
Disciplinary leaders make no mention of how local leaders can develop these definitions for
their programs, which may point to the need to have disciplinary societies leading the efforts to
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 147
redefine Ph.D. education, as disciplinary societies are perhaps best at developing professional
standards and best practices for Ph.D. programs. Local leaders could then adapt these definitions and
standards to fit their specific programs, training goals and placement outcomes. Disciplinary
societies could also incentivize programs by acknowledging their work as best practices on their
websites, publications, and at major conferences.
Fourth Strategy: Empowering Students and Faculty
The fourth strategy is the need to empower students and faculty and assumes that students are
fully capable of making good decisions when provided with realistic and thorough knowledge and
transparent information about Ph.D. education and placement. Participants suggest empowering
students to make the best career decisions by equipping them with as much information as possible
about the realities of the job market and contingent positions and what these mean for their career
objectives. Additionally, disciplinary leaders recognize that regardless of how often they promote
alt-ac careers, most Ph.D.’s will still prefer to take risks and pursue TTF placements. By being
realistic about the academia labor market and celebrating other types of careers leaders hope that
fewer students would want to pursue NTTF placements and instead consider other valuable career
options first.
Leaders also point to the importance of having more innovative mentorship approaches,
including creating more partnerships and identifying resources that can help further expose Ph.D.
students to placements beyond the TTF at research institutions. By working with other departments
and agencies on and off campus, Ph.D.’s would not only diversify their mentorship relationships, but
may also develop new cross-discipline areas of scholarship when working with individuals in other
departments or in the private sector. Disciplinary societies in this study are already providing
information on their websites which local leaders can utilize to better inform their students, which
may help students and faculty understand the reality of the academic labor market and the various
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 148
placement options students have to consider which local leaders can utilize to better inform their
students. Departments, however, should also make it a point to cultivate a culture of transparency, by
making sure students are up-to-date with the changes in the academic labor market, including major
shifts in the educational landscape, new roles and skills for faculty , what academia looks like at
various institutions and new areas of scholarship that are in most demand. These findings also
suggest the need for disciplinary leaders to help local leaders establish partnerships by developing
initial lists of organizations and institutions who are open to external partnerships and who are
willing to offer mentorship and other training opportunities to Ph.D. students. While building
partnerships with other on campus offices may be easier for local leaders to establish, partnerships
with other institutions and off-campus organizations may prove difficult for local departments.
Fifth Strategy: Increasing Advocacy Efforts for NTTF
The fifth strategy points to the importance of training Ph.D. students to be advocates for
NTTF. They suggest that by having more Ph.D.’s and Directors of Graduate Studies get involved at
the disciplinary level and in campus and departmental governance, Ph.D.’s may be more aware of
issues related to NTTF, may learn ways to negotiate better salaries and working conditions and may
be more inclined to get involved in various ways to advocate for the improvements of NTTF during
the time they are in school. Additionally, if more Ph.D.’s get involved in advocacy work, those who
attain TTF placements would likely continue their support which would increase the number of TTF
who are in support of improving NTTF placements.
Leaders also talk about the importance of having more adjuncts participate in leadership roles
both at the disciplinary and local level. By having more adjuncts, who know first-hand the
experiences of NTTF, participate in disciplinary society and local department committees and allow
them to mentor Ph.D. students, they could help to promote and support the creation of more policies
that address concerns with a growing NTTF and can communicate their personal experiences to
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 149
make the problems more “real” as most TTF are often removed from how the issue impacts their
colleagues. Additionally, having NTTF involved in the work done at the disciplinary level would
encourage more studies and disciplinary efforts geared towards addressing concerns with NTTF.
Sixth Strategy: Promoting Alt-Ac Careers
Finally, leaders talk about current reform efforts MLA and AHA are doing with regards to
promoting and valuing alt-ac careers. Participants talk about the importance of making their fields
more relevant to society, developing specific skills (such as digital and quantitative literacy) in Ph.D.
students, and expanding the purpose of a Ph.D. degree to work within and external to academia, all
of which they hope to attain via their efforts to promote careers beyond the professoriate.
Participants share how disciplinary societies are working to promote and value careers other than
TTF placements via research, additional data collection, having prominent leaders write articles
supporting other types of careers, increasing the visibility of Ph.D.’s who are currently in other types
of careers, and by creating pilot programs that implement enhancements to Ph.D. training. Overtime
their hope is that the culture of Ph.D. programs will shift and the number of Ph.D.’s pursuing NTTF
placements will reduce, as more students would consider other valuable careers first before
considering NTTF placements.
Participants in this study specifically point to the importance of celebrating all careers and
dismantling students’ fear of discussing with faculty mentors the possibilities of careers beyond TTF
placements. By validating careers beyond the professoriate and displaying such placements as
additional measures of success, leaders believe students will be more inclined to pursue other types
of careers before they pursue a NTTF placement and would more freely seek support from their
faculty mentors. Faculty would in turn also be more supportive and knowledgeable about the various
resources students can seek when they are interested in alt-ac careers.

REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 150
Contributions to the Literature
Through the interviews with seven disciplinary leaders and three adjunct faculty (two who
were recently promoted to TTF), this study provides insight as to how leaders are thinking more
specifically about addressing concerns with a shifting academic labor market, specifically from TTF
to NTTF. Obviously, encouraging Ph.D. students to pursue contingent placements is not productive
and a disservice to the students due to most NTTF placements being part-time and set up under poor
contracts and wages. Disciplinary leaders, therefore, focus on strategies to reform Ph.D. education
that will encourage students to consider other valuable and relevant careers within and outside of
academia, help reduce the number of contingent placements, and consider ways to advocate for the
improvement of NTTF positions.
Previous reports on reforming Ph.D. programs that partly address labor market concerns have
existed since the 1970’s, and continued to grow as Ph.D.’s were not attaining TTF placements, such
as in the 1980’s and 1990’s and then again more recently with the faculty majority now being off the
tenure track (Austin& Wulff, 2004). Initially, the realization that traditional training occurring in
Ph.D. programs was no longer adequate in preparing future faculty motivated the urgency to reform
Ph.D. education (Austin& Wulff, 2004). Themes in the reports that specifically targeted labor
market issues included the need to train students for a range of careers within and beyond academia,
the need to increase interdisciplinary work, increased consideration for diversity, and the need to
lessen the time to degree (Austin& Wulff, 2004). In chapter two, I briefly reviewed four major
national reform efforts including the Preparing Future Faculty program, Re-Envisioning the Ph.D.,
Toward a Responsive Ph.D., and the Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate (Golde and Dore 2001;
Lovitts 2001; National Association of Graduate and Professional Students, 2001; Nerad & Cerney,
2000; Nyquist, Austin, Sprague, and Wulff, 2001; Rice, Sorcinelli & Austin, 2000). I also reviewed
one major study titled the Survey on Doctoral Education and Career Preparation and briefly describe
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 151
the current efforts by MLA and AHA. Each of these previous reform efforts and studies aim to
improve the preparation of future faculty via reforming various areas of Ph.D. education. In chapter
two, I only discussed the areas from these reform efforts mostly related to addressing the issue of a
growing NTTF. While the findings from previous reform efforts are similar to the findings in this
dissertation, this dissertation contributes to the work previously done by further explaining how
some of these findings can also help to address concerns specifically about NTTF. Additionally, the
fact that previous recommendations for change have not withstood overtime continues to suggest the
need for disciplinary societies to work closer with local leaders in guiding and supporting them
towards implementation of changes to Ph.D. education.
Preparing Future Faculty and New Findings
In chapter two I presented an overview of the Preparing Future Faculty Program which looks
to expand the types of training Ph.D.’s traditionally receive towards careers in academia with
particular attention to improving training in research, teaching and service (Pruitt-Logan & Gaff,
2004). Some of the findings in the PFF program that are mostly related to addressing a growing
NTTF point to the need for students to develop expertise in teaching, to gain a clear understanding
of the various roles and responsibilities faculty have, to increase familiarity with different institution
types, to diversify students’ mentors, and to empower students to feel more confident to make more
informed career decisions (Pruitt-Logan & Gaff, 2004). By institutions participating in the PFF
programs, they are able to integrate the concepts of PFF into their departments with support and
guidance from PFF leaders with minimal interruption to traditional Ph.D. training structures (Pruitt-
Logan & Gaff, 2004).
Similarly, this study suggests the need to empower students by being more transparent and
forthcoming about the realities of the academic job market, but especially as it relates to contingent
positions. Additionally, leaders point to the importance of having clear expectations by defining the
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 152
purpose of Ph.D. education, the characteristics of a Ph.D. scholar, and the skills and training faculty
should develop. Leaders also speak about the need to diversify mentors so that Ph.D.’s are exposed
to a variety of careers, institutions and resources. This study furthers the work of PFF by supporting
the PFF approaches and how they can also help reduce the number of students who pursue NTTF
placements. By incorporating information specifically about NTTF in PFF approaches and
enhancements, PFF programs could help Ph.D. students be more aware about contingent positions
and in turn empower them to make more informed career decisions. Also, by incorporating issues of
NTTF into the PFF enhancements that focus on service training for Ph.D. students, PFF programs
can serve to increase advocacy efforts for NTTF.
Re-Envisioning the Ph.D. and New Findings
The second reform effort I reviewed in chapter two is the Re-Envisioning the Ph.D., which
conducts an environmental scan of doctoral education and initiates the discussion about whether or
not doctoral programs are adequately preparing their students in the variety of institutions in higher
education (Nyquist, Woodford, and Rogers, 2004). The efforts aim to dismantle “myths” or
unexamined assumptions including the assumption that only research institutions determine
adequate training for Ph.D.’s, that only careers in research are worthy of the Ph.D. degree, and that
only faculty know what is best for Ph.D. student placements and career choices (Nyquist, Woodford,
and Rogers, 2004). The efforts call for the need to help students make more informed career choices,
understand the roles and responsibility as a teacher, researcher, scholar, mentor and advisor, be able
to work with diverse students, and increase training in teaching and research (Nyquist, Woodford,
and Rogers, 2004).
Similarly, the findings in this study contribute to the Re-Envisioning the Ph.D. efforts by
supporting the need to redefine Ph.D. education not only for purposes of adequately training Ph.D.’s
for a variety of positions and to help students make more informed career decisions, but also to
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 153
consider the need to redefine the NTTF position and brainstorm ways to make it a more viable and
reputable career option and one that contributes to the advancements of teaching, and helps meet the
increased needs in service and governance. By redefining the purpose and mission of a Ph.D., many
“myths” or unexamined assumptions would be dismantled, as traditional Ph.D. education norms
would expand to be inclusive of new ways of training, research, teaching and partnerships and may
brainstorm ways to improve the NTTF position and integrate it into the fabric of academia as a
viable career.
Toward a Responsive Ph.D. and New Findings
The third reform effort I review in chapter two is Toward a Responsive Ph.D. Results point
to the need for new partnerships with on and off campus stakeholders, the need for new paradigms
such as developing cross-discipline and new areas of scholarship, the need for new practices beyond
just research, such as teaching and service, and the need for new people, or increasing
underrepresented students in doctoral education (Weisbuch, 2004). By bringing together
administrators, faculty, students, and business and community leaders, the Toward a Responsive
Ph.D. resulted in the understanding that doctoral education needs to reform its partnerships and
approaches to training to align better with the needs of society (Weisbuch, 2004). Some suggestions
from the Toward a Responsive Ph.D. were expanding the governance of Ph.D. programs to be more
inclusive of stakeholders external to the university, offering different approaches to completing the
dissertation to best align with the goals of the student and developing practical opportunities to
expand the training of Ph.D.’s beyond research (Weisbuch, 2004). This includes training students in
governance, service, and other work beyond academia (Weisbuch, 2004).
Similarly, this study suggests the need to diversify mentorship, increase partnerships with
stakeholders on and off campus, the need to expand cross-discipline scholarship, and the need to
provide more training in governance and service so that students are also able to negotiate better
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 154
terms and advocate for NTTF. The findings in this study contribute to the efforts of Toward a
Responsive Ph.D. by supporting its suggestions as also showing how they can be helpful in reducing
the number of Ph.D.’s who pursue contingent placements and in training Ph.D.’s in service and
governance so that they are better able to negotiate better contract terms and advocate for the
improvement of NTTF positions overtime.
Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate and New Findings
I also reviewed the Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate, which looks to align the purpose
and practices of doctoral education and develop Stewards of the Discipline or students who make it
their goal to contribute new knowledge and cultivate and preserve valuable ideas in their writing,
research and teaching (Golde, 2006; Walker, Golde, Jones, Bueschel, Hutchings, 2008). The CID
initially worked with disciplinary leaders to define the purpose of doctoral education and to define
the expectations from Ph.D. scholars and later collaborated with department leaders as they believed
academic departments are the key players in implementing changes and have the most knowledge
about their programs (Golde, 2006; Walker, Golde, Jones, Bueschel, Hutchings, 2008). Additionally,
the CID believed that by local leaders having more ownership and personal investment in reform
efforts it would increase the likelihood that the changes would continue being in effect (Golde, 2006;
Walker, Golde, Jones, Bueschel, Hutchings, 2008). The program resulted in the faculty and students
being able to develop and implement changes that would help train students to become Stewards of
the Discipline and the CID provided a means by which they would be able to then reflect on how
effective the changes were and make any ongoing changes as needed (Golde, 2006; Walker, Golde,
Jones, Bueschel, Hutchings, 2008).
The findings in the CID are also very similar to the findings in this dissertation as they both
address the need to develop clear expectations for what it means to be a Ph.D. scholar. Similar to the
CID, this study also suggests that while disciplinary leaders are most helpful in defining the purpose
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 155
of Ph.D. education, the expectations from Ph.D. scholars, and in providing guidance and essential
resources to support the field, local department leaders are best able to develop the specific changes
needed within their programs. This dissertation contributes to the findings of the CID, by suggesting
that defining the purpose of Ph.D. education and what it means to be a Ph.D. scholar also contributes
to reducing an overproduction of Ph.D. students as students would have a clearer understanding of
what would be expected from them and could make more informed decisions about whether or not it
is worthwhile to pursue a Ph.D..
Report of the MLA Task Force on Doctoral Study
This report came out in mid-2014 and was also motivated by the shifts in the academic
market in addition to the concerns with the need to reform graduate programs in English to better
prepare Ph.D.’s for the type of work that they do and address challenges related to time to degree
and the form of the dissertation, which is mostly useful to academic careers. The report suggested
that leaders consider redesigning Ph.D. programs by adding training in technological advances for
research and teaching, revising the format of the dissertation, improve the teaching preparation of
students, include training for careers beyond the professoriate, utilize campus resources towards
mentorship and student training, and revise admission practices. Additionally the report discusses
the need to advocate for the improvement of NTTF working conditions, as it becomes the new
majority at most campuses.
While this report came out when I was conducting my data collection, the findings were
perhaps the closest to this dissertation and support many of the ideas suggested in this dissertation.
While the report also addresses other general ideas to reform Ph.D. programs, the report focuses its
suggestion on the local context, which was similar to the way disciplinary leaders suggested ideas
for this dissertation. The meta-findings in this study therefore build on the MLA report to suggest the
next phase of research should consider looking at how disciplinary societies can expand their
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 156
traditional role to work closer with the local context in helping them implement such
recommendations for change.
AHA Career Diversity Project
Finally, while the AHA has not written a formal report on the results of its Career Diversity
Project to date, we do know a lot about the project’s goals and activities from the website, recent
conferences and various articles written in their newsletter. The AHA project mainly focuses on
promoting and valuing careers beyond the professoriate and considers various enhancements to
Ph.D. programs as part of a ways to meet their goals towards improving communication, teamwork,
quantitative literacy, and intellectual confidence in Ph.D. scholars.
Because part of the recommendations suggested in this dissertation revolve around the need
to promote and value alt-ac careers, the findings in this dissertation directly support the need for
more projects like the Career Diversity Project that focus more on improving the conditions of
NTTF.
Summary of Contributions to the Literature
The overall findings in this dissertation are similar to those of previous Ph.D. education
reform efforts, except that this study contributes to the literature by showing how some of the
previous findings can also address a growing NTTF. Additionally, the similarities between the
findings in this dissertation to those from previous studies, may suggest that because most reform
efforts are only proposed ideas or recommendations and not necessarily implemented and adopted
by the academy, ongoing problems continue within Ph.D. education. As we continue to train Ph.D.
students without scanning the educational and social landscapes, Ph.D. students will become less
marketable overtime and will not be able to see the transferability and relevancy of their degree and
training. A meta-finding this study contributes to the literature is pointing to the need for
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 157
disciplinary leaders to work closer with local leaders in implanting change and assessing the
effectiveness of implemented ideas overtime.
This dissertation also points to new areas of Ph.D. education reform that address issues with
a growing NTTF, but that were only briefly alluded to or not mentioned at all in previous reform
efforts. Table Five above compares the findings between this study and the studies reviewed in
chapter two and highlights the new contributions to the literature (only the recent report by MLA
and AHA’s current Career Diversity Project address some of these areas) which includes the need
for Ph.D. program leaders to consider implementing an ongoing practice of setting curricular and
staffing goals, the need to collect more data from Ph.D. education, increasing advocacy efforts for
NTTF and the need to reform admission practices as it relates to addressing an overproduction of
Ph.D.’s and increasing responsibility towards diversity in admission decisions.
Implications for Practice
As discussed in chapter two, reform efforts in Ph.D. education are not new and for many
years have attempted to address the misalignments that exist between students’ career and personal
goals, the training they receive and the reality of their placements. Other reform efforts have also
addressed general concerns with graduate education, such as time to degree, retention, the quality of
mentorships and bridging research with teaching. Both in previous reform efforts and in this study
disciplinary leaders believe that Ph.D. reform should happen at the local level. However, the
findings point to the lack of any systematic approach to reforming Ph.D. education from the bottom
up which may explain why change is largely unimplemented and we continue to only see leaders
proposing similar ideas for reform today with very few programs implementing change. By
disciplinary leaders only expressing ideas for change and not helping to align local leadership in
orchestrating reform, concerns with a growing NTTF, let alone the challenges within Ph.D.
education, remain largely unaddressed. In speaking with seven disciplinary leaders and three
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 158
adjunct faculty, some of who are also local leaders at various public and private research universities
and liberal arts colleges, many ideas were brainstormed and suggest that disciplinary and local
leaders must work together to address concerns with a growing NTTF via changes to graduate
education. The findings point to six general strategies which have implications for disciplinary
society leaders and department leaders.
Implications for Disciplinary Society Leaders
Many of the findings in this study are directed at the local level, which actually point to
major implications for disciplinary society leaders and how they first need to acknowledge the need
and ways in which they can work closer with local leaders in reforming their Ph.D. programs to
address concerns with a growing NTTF. One implication is the need for disciplinary society leaders
to develop more ongoing support systems and guidance for local leaders. This study and previous
reform efforts both point to ongoing brainstorming of ideas for local leaders, but these ideas
continue to be largely unimplemented. Disciplinary society leaders, versus local leaders, can take
the lead in helping orchestrate changes at the local level via conferences and/or publications and then
work with local leaders in developing specific ways in which they will support local departments to
implement change. Similar to how PFF works to provide institutions and departments with resources
and support systems to improve student training, one example may be for disciplinary society
leaders to consider collaborating with higher education associations to develop a similar program to
PFF, but with the goal of reducing NTTF placements and in turn advocate for improved working
conditions and developing more creative ways to integrate a limited number of NTTF intro the fabric
of the institutions. Disciplinary society leaders may even consider working with the PFF programs to
add components to PFF which will help address specific concerns with a growing NTTF. The
findings imply that disciplinary society leaders can help institutional leaders develop guidelines for
strategic planning, setting curricular and staffing goals. By disciplinary leaders helping guide local
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 159
leaders to develop and implement improved planning practices (setting strategic, curricular, and
staffing goals) at the department and program levels and explaining how this may decrease the
number of NTTF they hire, disciplinary leaders may help to reduce faculty reluctance to set goals
and develop strategic plans and provide ideas for how departments can best integrate their NTTF
into the life of the department and in turn improve the working conditions of NTTF they do hire.
Additionally, disciplinary leaders should consider developing practical guidelines and support
mechanisms to improve admission practices, including helping departments recruit more
underrepresented students, and most importantly developing effective mission statement that align
well with the practices and goals of each program.
The second implication is the need for disciplinary societies to collaborate with local leaders
and stakeholders outside of academia to redefine the purpose of a Ph.D. and MA education. This
would include the need to brainstorm, identify and define an improved mission, new skills and
training Ph.D. students will need to be successful in the academic and non-academic workforce.
Additionally, this would allow leaders to redefine the work of NTTF and brainstorm ways to best
integrate NTTF into academia without posing a threat to tenure and academic freedom. Related to
this is also the need for disciplinary leaders to define what good Ph.D. programs exemplify. This
would include working with local leaders to produce a set of criteria which distinguishes exemplary
programs from average Ph.D. programs.
Third, disciplinary leaders should develop formal mechanisms by which institutional leaders
can collect more sophisticated data. Participants discuss how disciplinary leaders can collaborate
with higher education organizations that can assist with funding to develop better systematic ways of
collecting data at the local and national level. This is currently already taking place via the Chronicle
of Higher Education, AHA and MLA, but working to further these efforts and having more
placement data that is inclusive of NTTF placements and non-academic placements would be helpful
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 160
in painting a more realistic picture to leaders about the outcomes of Ph.D. education and the impact
contingency has on both Ph.D. students and Ph.D. programs. Major disciplinary societies can work
to collect the data that individual Ph.D. programs have already collected and can make this an annual
practice. Results could then be presented and discussed in a report that would be produced and
distributed each year. This would in turn help department leaders know to expect such practice and
get them in the habit of collecting more data each year. The incentive would be seeing how their
programs compare with other Ph.D. programs in the field via the annual report.
The fourth implication is the importance for disciplinary societies to consider ways to recruit
more adjuncts to participate in their leadership roles and committees. By intentionally recruiting and
including more NTTF in the leadership of disciplinary societies, leaders would bring more insight
and personal experiences that could help develop and improve policies governing issues related to
NTTF. This would also provide additional opportunities to improve the working conditions of NTTF
by increasing their roles in governance and leadership in their fields.
Fifth, disciplinary societies can create a platform to strengthen the communication of local
leaders and lend a voice to concerns specifically related to NTTF. This could be done via online
forums, symposiums, annual meetings, or task forces. Considering both MLA and AHA have access
to their own publications, they could also create journals devoted solely to studies/issues related to
NTTF and their impact on the respective fields. This would also increase discussion between local
leaders and disciplinary leaders which can result in more productive solutions for change.
Finally, considering there are several disciplinary society organizations, all who are
addressing contingency from various angles, finding a way for all organizations to work together to
address the common concerns in Ph.D. education related to NTTF might further the efforts
individual societies are currently undergoing and may reach a larger number of administrators,
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 161
faculty and students. An example of this is how MLA and AHA are currently working together to
expand career horizons for Ph.D.’s.
Implications for Department Leaders
This study also suggests implications for local leaders, especially department heads and
directors of graduate programs. First, local leaders should consider making it a requirement for
faculty and Ph.D. students to be active on task forces related to addressing NTTF concerns at their
institutions and encouraging them to also participate at the disciplinary level. One way to ensure this
happens is for administrators to create an assistantship program focused on service, where similar to
a teaching or research assistantships, Ph.D. students from specific disciplines would devote a
minimum of one semester to working with a task force of administrators, TTF and/or NTTF to
address concerns with a growing NTTF. Part of the tasks the graduate assistants could take on is
maintaining a website devoted to concerns, issues and data about NTTF on their campus and provide
confidential advocacy support for NTTF. Incentives to encourage more TTF and NTTF involvement
in such a program would be to provide additional office space and/or small research/travel stipends.
By being more active and knowledgeable about NTTF related issues, students and leaders would be
better able to handle and communicate NTTF related concerns with their Ph.D. programs and
administration and would likely brainstorm different ways of reducing the number of NTTF they
hire and ways they can improve the professional development and working conditions of the NTTF
they do hire. This may also further the work on NTTF initiated at the disciplinary society level, as
many participants point to a gap in how policies and ideas discussed at the disciplinary society level
are often not implemented at the local level.
Second, directors of graduate studies should consider working with their school of education
or other departments who offer courses that teach Ph.D. students about governance and
administration in higher education. The course could involve students traveling to various local
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 162
campuses settings to learn about the differences in missions and faculty positions and include panels
on NTTF and related concerns. By learning and building networks with various types of campuses,
students might consider tenure-track positions at various types of institutions before considering
NTTF placements.
Third, directors of graduate studies should consider collaborating with their existing campus
career centers to improve the placement of Ph.D.’s and reduce the number of students pursuing
NTTF positions. By creating alumni networks and developing annual Ph.D. career symposiums
where alumni return to talk with current Ph.D.’s about their institutions and positions, Ph.D. students
can learn more about different types of placements alumni are attaining and their experience in such
positions. Career centers can also work with faculty to develop placement services specifically
tailored for Ph.D.’s, which would help support students in attaining other valuable placements. This
could include the development of a website devoted to Ph.D. student placement which could include
information about Alt-Ac careers and the process and training required to attain such jobs. This
could be a useful tool for Ph.D. students and for faculty mentors who may not be as familiar with
advising their students on non-academic jobs.
Fourth, institutional leaders can also implement an ongoing practice of evaluating their Ph.D.
programs for quality and learning outcomes. This includes measuring the quality of the curriculum,
the types of training offered, funding available for students, admission practices, and placement
outcomes. Both previous reform efforts and this study point to good programs possibly producing
less students who pursue contingent positions. By ensuring programs continue to offer diverse,
relevant and current training and develop the skills Ph.D.’s will need to be more marketable,
students may be more inclined to pursue other careers before considering a NTTF placement.
Additionally, continuously measuring the program for effectiveness and learning outcomes may
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 163
slowly begin to shift the culture of Ph.D.’s to embrace non-traditional outcomes and training
approaches.
Fifth, administrators should consider implementing mechanisms to increase and keep an
ongoing discussion on Ph.D. education reform to address a shifting labor market. This could take
place in various workshops led by alternating deans, chairs, NTTF, and students, annual
symposiums, roundtables and an online forum available via their Graduate School website. This
would bring all campus leaders and students involved in Ph.D. education together to find more
innovative ways to address the growing concerns with NTTF. Additionally, this could serve as an
active advocacy group.
This study also suggests the need for department leaders to increase transparency about the
academic labor market, their Ph.D. program goals and expectations and the types of placements they
value. Currently programs only focus on promoting TTF placements and communicate to students
that the expectation is that they attain TTF placements at research institutions. Department leaders
should consider providing clearer expectations and professional guidelines for students both via their
program websites, student meetings and handbooks, and by being more inclusive of other types of
careers that Ph.D.’s can consider. By being more transparent, communicating clear expectations, and
valuing all careers, students may feel less pressured to pursue NTTF placements in hopes of
attaining a TTF placement.
All of the previous reform efforts and this study point to the importance of mentorships,
especially as it relates to students discussing careers beyond the tenure-track placements at research
institutions with their mentors. Department leaders can encourage students to seek out a diverse
group of mentors on and off campus who can advise them on career possibilities, in addition to their
current graduate studies and training. Departments should also allow and guide NTTF to participate
as mentors to Ph.D. students. This includes mentoring Ph.D.’s in teaching and placement support.
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 164
Ph.D. students in return would learn more about NTTF positions, and could benefit from having
multiple advisors.
Future Research
This study provides insight from disciplinary society leaders, adjunct faculty and local
institutional and department leaders as to the areas of Ph.D. education that can be reformed to
address concerns with a growing NTTF. Many of the findings, however, come from ideas that
leaders brainstormed during the interviews and are not efforts they have necessarily been fully
developed let alone implemented. For this reason, the findings in this study are limited and suggest
the need for additional research so that we can further understand whether or not they might have
any impact on a growing NTTF.
First, a meta-finding in this study was the disconnect between local and national efforts. This
could be a major reason why implementing change is difficult and why challenges in Ph.D.
education remain largely unaddressed. The findings in this study therefore point to a need for a
study that further examines this disconnect between local and national efforts towards reforming
Ph.D. education to address growing concerns with the academic labor market shifts. Further
understanding this gap may propose more general ideas for how local and national contexts can
work together and propose a systematic process to implement changes.
Second, this study was limited in that I only interviewed seven disciplinary leaders, all of
who were from only two major disciplinary societies and one who was active in a smaller
disciplinary society. To further the findings in this study, future studies should consider interviewing
larger numbers of disciplinary leaders from different disciplinary organizations, including smaller
disciplinary societies who tend to work closer with local leaders. It would be helpful to understand
the role, if any, that smaller societies take with regards to Ph.D. education reform to address labor
market concerns, in addition to examining whether they have similar or additional ideas for reform.
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 165
Previous reform efforts have mostly worked with major disciplinary societies, so examining the
work of smaller disciplinary societies may further this study by providing additional ideas and
possibly more systematic approaches for change.
Third, it would be helpful if future studies considered interviewing more adjuncts (NTTF
who work at community colleges, research institutions and liberal arts colleges) about their ideas for
graduate education reform to address the shifts with the academic labor market. Through theoretical
sampling, this study included three adjunct faculty in the sample all who contributed more ideas for
advocating for the improvements of working conditions for NTTF and who briefly spoke to how
their graduate experience and training impacted their decision to pursue a NTTF placement.
However, conducting future studies that focus their samples on NTTF would help gather more
information about how Ph.D. training impacts their decisions and experiences as NTTF and may
result in additional ideas for reform than those presented in this study.
Fourth, the findings in this study also point to Ph.D. programs lacking data as it pertains to
placements outside the tenure track. As a result, Ph.D. programs do not have formal ways of
measuring the impact contingency has on their program placements and students. Gaining greater
understanding as to the challenges and the reasons why departments do not collect such data
formally as well as understanding how programs currently collect data is key to developing ways to
improve and develop mechanisms to collect more robust data to inform this issue.
Fifth, the findings suggest that if students are more aware of the differences in expectations
and outcomes for Ph.D. programs versus MA programs, they would likely select the degree that is
most appropriate for their personal and career goals. By examining why students pursue a Ph.D.
degree versus an MA program and looking at ways in which Ph.D.’s who are not in academia
benefited from their Ph.D. training would be helpful in helping to redefine and differentiate between
these two degrees. This may include the need to further understand if having a clearer information
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 166
about the expectations and identity of a Ph.D. scholar influences student decisions about pursuing a
Ph.D. Understanding student decision making, including what areas of graduate education and
personal experiences and contexts influence student decisions about their placement may help guide
graduate education reform to focus on improving the areas that have the most influence on student
decision making, so that students are less inclined to pursue NTTF placements and for the most part
only pursue Ph.D. studies when they are seriously considering furthering their education.
Finally, the findings in this study might be furthered by examining and comparing how other
disciplines are responding with changes. Interviewing other fields where the increase in NTTF is
growing and comparing their ideas might provide additional suggestions or may provide examples
and findings from ideas that have already been implemented.
Conclusion
Higher education institutions are no longer cozy sanctuaries somewhat removed from the
realities of a dynamic society. Today they are the backbone of our nation's knowledge-driven
economy. A college education has become a minimum requirement for entry into most skilled
jobs and for membership in the upwardly mobile American middle class. In this way, higher
education has moved from the periphery to the heart of American society. No longer may it
operate purely by its own ancient traditions and arcane decision-making procedures. Like all
other sectors of the U.S. economy, higher education exists within a competitive market and
must adapt to the rapidly changing environmental forces that alter market conditions
(Baldwin & Chronister, 2001).
This study sought to understand how disciplinary society leaders are addressing the issue of a
growing NTTF via changes to graduate education. This study particularly looked at the field of
English and History, as these are two of the fields that have had the greatest shift from TTF to
NTTF. Through the interviews with ten disciplinary society leaders, five of who are also local
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 167
leaders at both public and private research and liberal arts institutions, two of who had previously
been adjunct faculty, and three who are currently staff leaders at disciplinary organizations, this
study explains how the increase in NTTF placements impacts Ph.D. programs and how Ph.D.
education reform can help address some of these concerns. Using a grounded theory approach, the
study found six themes (or strategies) for graduate education reform that can serve to address a
concern with a growing NTTF. Additionally, the study found fifteen subthemes which point to areas
within graduate education that should be considered when looking to further develop and implement
each of the identified strategies for reform. While participants mostly spoke about their current
efforts to promote alt-ac careers and their ideas for improving Ph.D. education overall, leaders did
brainstorm ideas to address the concern with NTTF placements. Because leaders agree discouraging
Ph.D. students from pursuing NTTF placements due to the poor working conditions and salaries is
more productive in addressing the concerns with a growing NTTF, and because they direct most of
their ideas at local leaders, most of their ideas to address NTTF via Ph.D. education reform aim to
reduce the number of contingent placements, reduce the number of students pursuing NTTF
placements, reduce the number of Ph.D. students being admitted to programs, and develop more
ways in which Ph.D. programs can increase advocacy efforts for the improvement of NTTF
working conditions and contracts.
The literature presented in chapter two discusses major reform efforts in Ph.D. education and
reviews these efforts as they relate to NTTF. Most of the findings from previous reform efforts are
similar to the strategies found in this study, and mainly suggest that Ph.D. education is in critical
need to redefine itself, empower students via transparency and painting a comprehensive and
realistic picture of the academic labor market, diversify mentorships, increase cross-discipline
scholarship and partnerships, and shift the culture to embrace the promotion and value of alt-ac
careers. The findings also point to new areas in graduate education reform that help to address a
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 168
growing NTTF including increasing the admission of underrepresented students into Ph.D.
programs, setting curricular and staffing goals, increasing advocacy efforts for NTTF and improving
data collection practices. These findings have implications for the work of disciplinary and local
department leaders, but are quite limited due to the time and scope of this study. For this reason this
study would benefit from further research to gain more insight as to whether these strategies would
indeed result in the reduction of NTTF placements and the increase in advocacy efforts for NTTF.
Additionally, further research would provide diverse perspectives, as this study only considers the
perspectives of disciplinary leaders, even though some participants had experience as deans,
department chairs and as NTTF.
Overall, this study explains how disciplinary leaders view addressing the issue with a
growing NTTF via graduate education reform and helps to identify possible strategies for reform
which appear to support previous reform efforts in graduate education, but more specifically address
the concern with a growing NTTF by possibly reducing the number of NTTF placements and
increasing advocacy efforts for NTTF. As we continue to see a growing number of NTTF at
institutions where we have not previously seen NTTF be the faculty majority, and as we see an
increase in the discussion of how this will impact higher education overtime, leaders should consider
implementing efforts that might help to address the concerns.

REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 169
References
Audrey, W. J. (2012). Job market looks brighter for some Ph.D.’s. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/915166139?accountid=14749
Austin, A. E. (2002) Preparing the Next Generation of Faculty: Graduate School as Socialization to
the Academic Career. The Journal of Higher Education, 73 (1), 94-122.
Austin, A. E. (2003). Creating a bridge to the future: Preparing new faculty to face changing
expectations in a shifting context. Review of Higher Education, 26 (2), 119-144.
Austin, A. E. & Wulff, D. H. (2004). Paths to the Professoriate: Strategies for Enriching the
Preparation of Future Faculty. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Baldwin, R.G. &. Chronister, J.I. (2001). Teaching without tenure: Policies and practices for a new
era. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Berger, A., Kirshstein, R., & Rowe, E. (2001). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES). Institutional policies and practices: Results from the 1999
National Study of Postsecondary Faculty, Institution Survey. Washington, DC.
Bergquist, W. H., Pawlak, K., 1953, & Bergquist, W. H. (2008). Engaging the six cultures of the
academy: Revised and expanded edition of the four cultures of the academy (2nd ed.). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bess, J. L. (1978). Anticipatory socialization of graduate students. Research in Higher Education,
(8), 289-317.
Blum, H., Chinn, S., Connolly, B., Eburne, J.P., Fruscione, J., Greiman, J.,…Schoenbach, L.M.
(2013). Don’t capitulate. Advocate. Inside Higher Ed, Retrieved from
https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2014/06/24/essay-critiques-mla-report-graduate-
education
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 170
Bok, D. (2013). We must prepare Ph.D. students for the complicated art of teaching. The Chronicle
of Higher Education, Retrieved 7.16.2015 from http://chronicle.com/article/We-Must-Prepare-
Ph.D.-Students/142893/.
Borkowski, N. A. (2006). Changing our thinking about assessment at the doctoral level. In P. L.
Maki & N. A. Borkowski, The assessment of doctoral education: Emerging criteria and new
models for improving outcomes (11-52). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ:
Canegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Bousquet, M. (2014). The moral panic in literary studies. The Chronicle of Higher Education,
Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1513859823?accountid=14749.
Brookins, J. & Grossman, J. (2014) Career diversity’s time has come: Mellon Foundation awards
AHA $1.6 million to expand historians’ options, Perspectives.
Cassuto, L. (2012). The multi-track Ph.D. The Chronicle of Higher Education, Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1082420634?accountid=14749
Cassuto, L. (2014). The MLA tells it like it is. The Chronicle of Higher Education, Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1537378445?accountid=14749
Cassuto, L. (2014). '4 years is enough' and other reforms. Chronicle of Higher Education, 60(23),
A24-A25.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis.
London: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 171
Cross, J. G., & Goldenberg, E. N., (2009). Off-track profs: Nontenured teachers in higher education.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gaff, J. G., Pruitt-Logan, A. S., Sims, L. B., and Denecke, D. D. (2003). Preparing Future Faculty
in the Humanities and Social Sciences: A Guide for change. Washington, D.C.: Council of
Graduate Schools.
Gappa, J. M. (2001). Academic careers for the 21st century: More options for new faculty. In J. C.
Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, 17, (425–475). Dordrecht,
Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Golde, C.M. (2006). Preparing Stewards of the Disciplines. In C. M. Golde, & G. E. Walker,
Envisioning the future of doctoral education: Preparing the stewards of the discipline.
Carnegie essays on the doctorate. (3-23). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Golde, C. M. & Dore, T. M. (2001). At Cross Purposes: What the experiences of today’s graduate
students reveal about doctoral education. (www.Ph.D..survey.org). Philadelphia, PA: Pew
Charitable Trust.
Golde, C. M., Jones, L., Bueschel, A.C., & Walker, G.E. (2006). The challenges of doctoral program
assessment: Lessons from the Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate. In P. L. Maki & N. A.
Borkowski, The assessment of doctoral education: Emerging criteria and new models for
improving outcomes (53-82). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Golde, C. M. & Walker, G. M. (2006). Envisioning the future of doctoral education: Preparing
stewards of the discipline. Carnegie essays on the doctorate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hoffer, T., Dugoni, B., Sanderson, A,. Sederstrom,S., Ghadialy, R., & Pocque, P. (2001).
Doctorate recipients from United States universities: Summary report 2000. Chicago:
National Opinion Research Center.
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 172
Kezar, A. & Sam, C. (2010a). Understanding the new majority of non-tenure track faculty in higher
education: Demographics, experiences, and plans of action. ASHE Higher Education Report,
36 (4), San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kezar, A. & Sam, C. (2010b).Non-tenure track faculty in higher education: Theories and tensions.
ASHE Higher Education Report, 36 (5), San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lovitts, B. E. (2001). Leaving the ivory tower: The causes and consequences of departure from
doctoral study. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.
Magner, D. K. (2000). Critics urge overhaul of Ph.D. training, but disagree sharply on how to do so.
The Chronicle of Higher Education, 46 (34), A19-A20. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/214715750?accountid=14749
Maki, P. L., & Borkowski, N. A. (2006). The assessment of doctoral education: Emerging criteria
and new models for improving outcomes. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
MLA (2014). Report of the MLA Task Force on Doctoral Study in Modern Languages and
Literature. Retrieved from http://www.mla.org/pdf/taskforcedocstudy2014.pdf
National Association of Graduate-Professional Students. (2001). 2001 National Program Survey.
Washington, D.C.: National Association of Graduate-Professional Students.
Nerad, M., & Cerny, J. (2000). Improving doctoral education: recommendations from the Ph.D.’s—
Ten Years Later Study. Council of Graduate School Communicator, 33(2), 6.
Nyquist, J. D. (2002): The Ph.D. a tapestry of change for the 21st century, Change: The Magazine of
Higher Learning, 34 (6), 12-20.
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 173
Nyquist, J. D., Austin, A. E., Sprague, J., & Wulff, D. H. (2001). The development of graduate
students as teaching scholars: A four-year longitudinal study. Seattle: University of
Washington, Center for Instructional Development and Research.
Nyquist, J. D., Woodford, B. J., & Rogers, D. L. (2004). Re-envisioning the Ph.D.: A challenge for
the twenty-first century. In D. H. Wulff, A. E. Austin, & Associates, Paths to the
professoriate: Strategies for enriching the preparation of future faculty (194-216). San
Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Prewitt, K. (2006). Who should do what: Implications for institutional and national leaders. In C. M.
Golde, & G. E. Walker, Envisioning the future of doctoral education: Preparing the stewards
of the discipline. Carnegie essays on the doctorate. (pp. 23-33). San Francisco: Jossey Bass,
2006.
Pruitt-Logan, A. S., & Gaff, J. G. (2004). Preparing Future Faculty: Changing the culture of doctoral
education. In D. H. Wulff, A. E. Austin, & Associates, Paths to the professoriate: Strategies
for enriching the preparation of future faculty (177-193). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.
Rice, R., Sorcinelli, M., & Austin, A. E. (2000). Heading new voices: Academic careers for a new
generation (New Pathways Working Papers Series No. 7). Washington, DC: American
Association for Higher Education.
Schuster, J.H. & Finkelstein, M. J. (2006). The American faculty: The restructuring of academic
work and careers. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Tierney, W. G., & Rhoads, R. A. (1994). Faculty socialization as a cultural process: A mirror of
institutional commitment (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 93-6). Washington,
D.C.: The Kent Washington University School of Education and Human Development.
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 174
Umbach, P. (2007). How effective are they? Exploring the impact of contingent faculty on
undergraduate education, The Review of Higher Education, 30 (2), 91–123.
Walker, G. E. (2004). The Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate: Creating stewards of the discipline.
In D. H. Wulff, A. E. Austin, & Associates, Paths to the professoriate: Strategies for
enriching the preparation of future faculty, (236-249). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.
Walker, G. E., Golde, C. M., Jones, L., Bueschel, A. C., & Hutchings, P. (2008). The formation of
scholars: Rethinking doctoral education for the twenty-first century. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Weisbuch, R. (2004). Toward a Responsive Ph.D.: New partnerships, paradigms, practices, and
people. In D. H. Wulff, A. E. Austin, & Associates, Paths to the professoriate: Strategies for
enriching the preparation of future faculty (217-235). San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.

REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 175
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF REFORM EFFORTS
Program Description Major Proposed Areas for Reform Reform Components Related to NTTF Training
Preparing
Future Faculty
Enhances doctoral
student training in
research, teaching
and services
 Courses on Pedagogy
 Workshops/Student Activities
 Partnerships with different institutional
types or “Clusters”
 Increasingly complex Teaching
assistantships
 Certificate programs
 Multiple mentorship relations for
research, teaching, and/or service/
 Increasingly Complex Assistantships
 Incorporation of pedagogical skills
 Enhanced and multiple Mentorships
 Cluster approach to design
 Designate Disciplinary Societies as leadership
 Importance of discipline specific approach to reduce
complexity of implementation
Re-Envisioning
the Ph.D.
Aims to provide a
space for the
collaboration
between different
stakeholders to
demystify myths of
doctoral education
 Design a website to communicate
findings and future studies, and/or
information
 Develops a selected bibliography
related to doctoral education
 Communicates information and
differences regarding roles and
expectations of faculty across
institutional types
 Partners with various stakeholders,
including faculty, administrators,
private organizations, government
agencies, and students.
 Offers interdisciplinary opportunities
 Bridges research and teaching
 Offers improved career exploration
opportunities to meet the needs of
diverse students
 Increase parameters by which faculty examine career
options for Ph.D.’s
 Improve mentorships
 Provide assistantships with increasing teaching
responsibility
 Implement a culture of assessment and evaluation
 Improve the alignment between program and institution
mission statements and practices
 Increase communication related to the expectations of
competency for the various faculty roles
 Create and/or improve partnerships between stakeholders
of doctoral education.
 Bridge research and teaching

Carnegie
Initiative on the
Doctorate
Cultivates stewards
of the discipline by
better aligning the
purpose and
practices within
doctoral education
 Increase discussion and deliberation at
the department level to reform doctoral
programs
 Increase partnerships with disciplinary
leaders
Provide ways to incorporate assessment
and publication on relevant issues in
doctoral education
 Collaborate with disciplinary leaders
 Focus on discipline specific reform efforts
 Consider qualities and skills of NTTF when considering
ways to cultivate stewards of the discipline

Toward A
Responsive Ph.D.
Create a more
holistic doctoral
education and
encourage
collaborations
between social and
academic realms
 Engages participating departments in
discussions and focuses reform on four
themes: new partnerships, new
paradigms, new practices, and new
people.

 Provide training in teaching and service
 Provide information about changing educational landscapes
 Increase partnerships with other schools and encourage
collaboration
 Increase interdisciplinary scholarship; bring research and
teaching together
Survey on
Doctoral
Education and
Career
Preparation
Highlights areas of
weakness and
strength within
doctoral education
from students’
perspectives
 Survey recommendations are organized
by relation to students, deans, chairs,
and faculty. Suggestions revolve around
improving access and accuracy of
information provided to students,
improving mentorships, increasing
interdisciplinary opportunities, and
providing training for teaching and
ethical practices, and implementing
assessments to ensure student goals
match effectiveness and deliverance of
program
 Provide accurate information regarding placement
opportunities
 Improve mentoring partnerships
 Provide information about non-traditional career paths
 Encourage faculty to be supportive of alternative positions
 Implement program assessment and evaluation efforts
 Expand disciplinary boundaries
 Provide professional development activities
 Provide resources and support for programs that will help
students with teaching skills, and preparation as future
faculty
 Develop centralized career services for doctoral students
REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 176
MLA Task Force
on Doctoral
Study
Collaborates with
local leaders and
students to
examine doctoral
education in
response to recent
challenges
 Recommends ways in which local
leaders can reform Ph.D. programs to
address various concerns with doctoral
study in the humanities, including time
to degree, the academic labor market,
and unmet student needs.
 Align training with the career and learning needs of the
students
 provide training in technological advanced for scholarly
research and teaching
 improve teaching preparation and training
 offer training for careers beyond the professoriate
 make use of all campus resources towards mentorship and
training
 provide more information and validate alternative career
options
 revise admission practices to consider alternative careers and
to be inclusive of underrepresented groups
 increase advocacy for NTTF
AHA Career
Diversity Project
Examines ways to
enhance doctoral
education to
promote and value
alternative career
options.
 Project looks to improve
communication, teamwork quantitative
literacy, and intellectual confidence as
ways of improving the training of Ph.D.
students for placements within and
external to academia
 Validate alternative career options
 Increase partnerships
 Diversify mentorships
 Align practices with mission and purpose of Ph.D.
 Increase transparency and communication
 Increase cross-discipline study
 Shift culture
 Improve data collection practices

REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 177
APPENDIX B
INITIAL INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

General Information
Name: Position:
Years in Position(s): Organization/Institutional Affiliation:
Contact information:
Interview Protocol
1. Considering the recent job market shift from TTF to NTTF within your discipline, tell me
how your discipline might be affected? What efforts have you implemented or supported to
address any issues related to this job market shift? *
2. Tell me about your experience in working with doctoral programs, and how the growth in
NTTF appointments might impact doctoral education within your discipline? *
3. Tell me about discussions within your discipline that focus on doctoral education reform in
general? How are these discussions involving the issue of increased NTTF appointments?
Are there any efforts planned or being created/implemented to address these issues? If so,
what do they involve?
4. What are your perceptions (views/opinions) of NTTF? How might these perceptions affect
the creation or implementation of efforts to address the NTTF phenomena within doctoral
programs in your field?*
5. What is the level of urgency/priority in addressing the concerns related to NTTF in doctoral
education? What do think impacts the urgency/priority to address these issues in your field?*
6. What do you predict will happen to the current situation with NTTF in your discipline ten
years from now? Are there any efforts discussed/planned that may shift the move to NTTF?*
7. What skills and qualities would you say an NTTF needs to possess to be effective? How
might graduate programs prepare Ph.D.’s for careers as NTTF? *
8. In an ideal world, how do you perceive the role of NTTF at four year institutions? (probe
with ideas on shared governance, campus involvement, classroom, working
conditions/contracts, options towards tenure).
9. Would you consider more radical changes in graduate training, such as new degree programs
for NTTF?
10. Is there anything else you would like to tell me about your experience with NTTFs? Do you
have any questions for me?

REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 178
Possible Additional Questions:

11. How might doctoral students and programs benefit from having the training needed in their
doctoral programs to better prepare them to be effective NTTF?
12. How might the implementation of a NTTF training program cause a detriment to doctoral
education?
13. What would you say would be the biggest challenges/obstacles in implementing a NTTF
training program in doctoral programs within your field?
14. How might implementing a training program in doctoral education be a catalyst for the
improvement of working conditions, contracts and the appeal/prestige of the NTTF position?

REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 179
APPENDIX C
REVISED INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

1. Considering the shifts in the academic labor market, tell me what you believe is at the core of the
problem with regards to the structural issues/misalignments within Ph.D. education?
2. What are your thoughts on the MLA’s/AHA’s recent work on graduate education reform and/or
advocacy for the improvement of NTTF appointments? How are people responding? Would you
suggest they have approached any part of their work differently?
CULTURE/VALUE/PRESTIGE
3. What might you say are the greatest challenges in attempting to change the traditional norms that
might exist amongst scholars and your Ph.D. programs?
4. How can a professional association like the MLA/AHA be intentional in helping faculty,
administrators and students change how careers outside of the tenure track are valued?
MENTORSHIP
5. What changes to the current mentorship practices amongst the Ph.D. programs in your field might
you promote/recommend?
ASSISTANTSHIPS/TRAINING/CURRICULUM
6. In considering alt ac careers, what general types of training need to be implemented to help
students gain the skills necessary for work outside the tenure track?
7. What changes to traditional assistantship models might you propose and why?
8. What are your thoughts on how students might feel about altering the traditional curriculum and
training of Ph.D. programs?
ACTIVISM/ADVOCATING
9. Tell me how you might encourage changes to the working conditions of NTTF through
improvements in Ph.D. education? For example, what advice should mentors give their students
with regards to NTTF positions? What realities should be discussed in a Ph.D. program with regards
to the increase in contingent faculty appointments?
DOCUMENTATION/DATA
10. How do you foresee documentation (publications, blogs, etc.) playing a role in helping to change the
culture and structure of graduate education?
11. How might data collection play a role in reform efforts within the MLA/AHA and how can the
MLA/AHA implement such data collection practices? What other types of data beyond placement
do you feel will be necessary?

REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 180
IMPLEMENTATION/GENERAL CHALLENGES
12. What other changes beyond the ones in the recent Report on the MLA Task Force on Doctoral Study
might you consider?
13. In looking at previous Ph.D. education reform efforts, some implemented programs were never
assessed or encountered challenges in accountability due to budgets, level of commitment and
leadership changes. How can the MLA/AHA encourage Ph.D. programs to practice and implement
the changes proposed?
14. What types of obstacles and/or challenges might be encountered in implementing such changes to a
Ph.D. program? What would you suggest to other disciplines that are looking to make similar
changes?

REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 181
APPENDIX D
INITIAL OVERVIEW OF STUDY

REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 182

REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 183
APPENDIX E
REVISED OVERVIEW OF STUDY
Dissertation Title
Reforming Ph.D. Programs to Address the Changing Academic Labor Market

Overview of the Study
Recent changes in the educational landscape, particularly at four year institutions, are increasingly requiring that faculty
be skilled in interdisciplinary work, understanding teaching/learning theories, utilizing technology advances in the
classroom, working with diverse groups of students, and understanding the central purpose and value of higher education
(Austin, 2003). Additionally, with increasing pressures to meet course offering demands and increase the quality of
education under limited budgets and shifting enrollments, institutions and departments rely heavily on the hiring of more
full and part-time non-tenure track faculty (NTTF). As a result, NTTF placements are now the new majority with 3 out
of every 4 Ph.D. graduates placed in NTTF appointments (Austin & Wulff, 2004; Kezar & Sam, 2010a; Schuster and
Finkelstein, 2006; Walker, Golde, Jones, Bueschel, Hutchings, 2008).

Considering this major shift in the academic labor market, scholars continue to examine what the new professoriate
might need to be successful in the classroom and beyond. Looking at the changing nature of the faculty, suggestions for
graduate education around institutional policy, like admissions or job placement, and conversations and practices within
the disciplinary societies like alternative career paths, advice and mentoring, support at conferences for networking, and
new ideas for training are essential to gain more understanding as to the direction disciplinary societies are taking with
regards to graduate education reform. Previous studies that examine graduate education reform, include the Preparing
Future Faculty program, Re-Envisioning the Ph.D., Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate, Toward A Responsive Ph.D.,
and the Survey on Doctoral Education and Career Preparation (Austin and Wulff, 2004; Golde and Walker, 2006;
Nyquist, 2002). While these reform efforts focus primarily on challenges within doctoral education that do not always
pertain to changes in the academic labor market (Austin and Wulff, 2004), the studies do point to similar findings
including the need for: clarification of skills and opportunities, new partnerships, improved mentorships, increasingly
complex teaching opportunities, bridging teaching with research, and training on pedagogical approaches.

This dissertation, therefore, examines how the disciplinary societies within History and Modern Languages might be
responding to the shifts in the academic labor market with changes both at the discipline level and/or at the
institutional/program level. Practices, policies and training can encompass, but are not limited to, admission policies,
conferences, alternative career options, professionalization efforts, mentoring, improved communication of academic
appointment options, new partnerships, socialization efforts, curricular changes, and the creation of teaching practicum
opportunities. Understanding the ongoing conversations within the disciplinary societies with regards to how graduate
programs can better prepare Ph.D. students to build the skills and qualifications needed to be successful in the
professoriate in the 21
st
century is a major goal of this study. The main research question is:

How are disciplinary societies in the fields that have had the labor market shift dramatically from tenure track to
non-tenure track (History and Modern Languages) responding with changes in terms of doctoral education?

The study assumes that the findings will suggest a preliminary framework on possible improvements to doctoral
education that might further serve to improve the working conditions and appeal of NTTF positions to better meet the
needs of the changing professoriate, as well as the needs of institutions and departments.

Methodology
This study uses a grounded theory approach which emphasizes the common experience of individuals with the aim of
providing an explanation for a process or action (Charmaz, 2006; Creswell, 2013; Merriam, 2009). The sample criteria
for this study requires that participants be leaders in the disciplinary societies of history and modern languages and have
previous leadership experience or familiarity with the work of a department chair, director and/or dean of graduate
programs. A minimum of 15 one hour semi-structured interviews will be conducted. Based on the data analysis and
findings, additional follow up interviews with previous and/or new participants may be needed. The data will be
analyzed utilizing initial, focused and axial coding until all themes/categories reach saturation.

REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 184
APPENDIX F
INITIAL PARTICIPANT SOLICITATION
Dear ___________________,
My name is Veri Chavarin and I am currently a doctoral student at the Rossier School of Education
at the University of Southern California. My dissertation chair, Dr. Adrianna Kezar, mentioned you
worked with her on the Delphi study and suggested I get in touch with you with regards to my
dissertation work. As part of my doctoral dissertation, I am conducting a study on non-tenure track
faculty, where I specifically examine how doctoral programs might respond with changes to the
growth in non-tenure track appointments at four-year institutions. My study aims to interview
disciplinary leaders within the fields of English/Composition, History and Modern Languages and
looks to provide a better understanding on how doctoral programs might change the training of
Ph.D. students in these fields.
As a disciplinary leader, who carries much expertise in the needs and priorities of your field, your
participation would be extremely valuable. For this reason, I would be most grateful if we could
possibly schedule a time to speak over the phone to further discuss my study and see if you might be
interested in participating in an interview and/or possibly get your recommendation as to how I can
best contact additional individuals at ___ who might be interested in participating. My availability is
flexible, so I can accommodate my schedule to find a time that works best for you.
Attached you will find an informed consent form describing participation in the study. If you would
like me to send you additional information about my study, please let me know.
I thank you for your time and am truly excited about the possible opportunity to speak with you. I
look forward to hearing from you soon.
Best,
Veri Chavarin. Med
Doctoral Candidate, USC Rossier School of Education

REFORMING PH.D. TO ADDRESS ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET 185
APPENDIX G
REVISED PARTICIPANT SOLICITATION

Dear ________________,
I am currently an EdD candidate at the USC Rossier School of Education and am working with
my chair, Dr. Adriana Kezar, on my dissertation that focuses on how disciplinary leaders are
responding to the recent shifts in the academic job market with changes to graduate education. I
am highly interested in the current work MLA/AHA is doing and have already spoken with
________________, who suggested I also contact you and inquire about your interest in
participating in an interview for my dissertation.

Below you will find brief points with regards to the purpose of the study. I have also attached a
more detailed summary of my dissertation for your reference. If you are interested in
participating in an interview, please contact me at vchavari@usc.edu letting me know your
preferred dates and times for an interview. The interview will take approximately an hour of
your time and I can send you the interview protocol prior to the interview. All of the interviews
will be conducted over the phone and I am hoping to complete them between now and July.

I thank you for your time and hope you will consider participating. If you have any questions or
concerns, please feel free to contact me. I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Purpose
 Examines how disciplinary societies are responding to recent shifts in the academic job
market (mostly from tenure-track to non-tenure track) with changes to policies and practices
within graduate education in their respective fields.
 Considers current conversations, ideas and planned changes/ implementations of policies and
practices directly related to graduate education reform in Modern Languages and History.
 Provides a comprehensive framework of ideas for graduate education reform to increase
understanding of the possibilities in addressing current changes within academia.
Participation
 Disciplinary leaders (including leaders and members of committees and task forces) are
eligible to participate
 Participation is voluntary and only requires 1or 2 one-hour phone interview/s
 All data and findings will be kept strictly confidential
 Findings/published results will be available to participants upon request

Best,
Veri Chavarin, MEd
Doctoral Candidate, USC Rossier School of Education

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Institutions are heavily depending on the hiring of more full and part-time non-tenure track faculty (NTTF). As a result, NTTF are now the new majority, with 3 out of every 4 Ph.D. graduates placed in NTTF appointments. This study reviews previous graduate education reform studies, including the Preparing Future Faculty program, Re-Envisioning the Ph.D., Carnegie Initiative on the Doctorate, Toward A Responsive Ph.D., the Survey on Doctoral Education and Career Preparation and more recently the MLA Report on the Task Force for Doctoral Study and the AHA Career Diversity Project, and examines how the disciplinary societies within History and English are responding to the shifts in the academic labor market with changes to graduate education. The central research question asks how are disciplinary leaders in the fields that have had the labor market shift dramatically from tenure track to non-tenure track (History and English) responding with changes in terms of doctoral education? Using a grounded theory approach, seven disciplinary leaders and three adjunct faculty are interviewed and the findings suggest six strategies for change that leaders can consider in further examining whether these strategies actually result in addressing the concerns with a growing NTTF. The findings have implications for both disciplinary and local department leaders, but can benefit from future research, as the ideas presented by disciplinary leaders have not necessarily been implemented.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Underrepresentation of African American faculty in higher education: an improvement model dissertation

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

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The mid-career void: Understanding the path from associate to full professor

PDF

Faculty perceptions of barriers: gender and ethnicity differences among tenured and tenure-track faculty in the University of California system

PDF

Preparing students for the 21st century labor market through liberal arts education at a Chinese joint venture university

PDF

Staying rooted: a mixed-methods analysis examining bilingualism, familism, and the parenting styles experienced by Latino college graduates

PDF

The impact of student-faculty interaction on undergraduate international students' academic outcome

PDF

Building networks for change: how ed-tech coaches broker information to lead instructional reform

PDF

Influences of African American English that contribute to the exclusion of African American students from academic discourse

PDF

Use of Kotter’s change model by elementary school principals in the successful implementation of inclusive education programs for students with disabilities in K-6 elementary schools in Southern ...

PDF

In the implementation of standards-based reform: what is the leadership role of the principal in building school capacity and accountability to sustain student academic growth?

PDF

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

PDF

The relationship between academic capitalism and student culture at two four-year higher education institutions

Asset Metadata

Creator Chavarin, Veridiana (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 11/04/2015

Defense Date 08/11/2015

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

Tag academic labor market,disciplinary societies,doctoral education reform,non-tenure-track faculty,OAI-PMH Harvest,Ph.D. programs

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Kezar, Adrianna (committee chair), Daniels, Sonja (committee member), Venegas, Kristan (committee member)

Creator Email vchavari@usc.edu,veridianachavarin@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-196096

Unique identifier UC11279376

Identifier etd-ChavarinVe-4012.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-196096 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-ChavarinVe-4012.pdf

Dmrecord 196096

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Chavarin, Veridiana

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