University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Part-time faculty and their sense of belonging

(USC Thesis Other)

Part-time faculty and their sense of belonging

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running Head: PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 1

PART-TIME FACULTY AND THEIR SENSE OF BELONGING

by

Cari Anne Ryan

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

December 2017

Copyright 2017 Cari Anne Ryan
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 2
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to those who I have had the pleasure to work with during the writing of my
dissertation and coursework as a graduate student at USC. The members of my dissertation
committee, Dr. Artineh Samkian and Dr. Tracy Poon Tambascia, provided invaluable feedback. I
am forever grateful to my dissertation chair, Dr. Julie Slayton, who helped me to become a better
researcher and writer and gave me an understanding of the complex and exciting world of
qualitative research. Words cannot convey my gratitude but I hope my work in higher education
serves as testament to the guidance and knowledge she has given me.
I am so thankful to my family and friends for their support. I would like to thank my
parents, whose love and support made me believe that I could attain such an accomplishment.
Most importantly, I wish to thank my loving and very patient husband, Bryce, whose
encouragement and positivity helped me to persevere.

PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 3
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements 2
List of Tables 5
List of Figures 6
Abstract 7
Chapter One: Introduction 8
Background of the Problem 9
Statement of the Problem 13
Purpose of the Study 13
Significance of the Study 13
Organization of the Study 14
Chapter Two: Literature Review 15
Organizational Culture 16
Organizational Culture Theory 17
Individual Sensemaking within Organizations 22
Theory of Local Work Contexts 26
Semiotics 30
Psychological Contract Theory 31
Psychological contracts model of contingent work 35
Conclusion 38
Sense of Belonging 39
Theories on Belonging 41
Empirical Studies on Belonging 46
Conclusion 55
Conceptual Framework 57
Self- and Organization Schema 59
Self-Schema 60
Organization Schema 61
Lone Sensemaking 63
Accommodation or Renegotiation of Norms, Rituals, and
Practices 64
Part-time Faculty’s Development of a Sense of Belonging 64
Conclusion 66
Chapter Three: Methods 67
Research Design 67
Sample 68
Criterion 1 69
Criterion 2 69
Criterion 3 69
Criterion 4 70
Criterion 5 70
Data Collection and Instruments/Protocols 72
Interviews 72
Data Analysis 74
Limitations and Delimitations 78
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 4
Credibility and Trustworthiness 79
Ethics 81
Conclusion 81
Chapter Four: Findings 82
Finding 1. Similarities in Definitions of Belonging 87
Definitions with Analogies that Represented Connectedness 88
Definitions with Socio-emotional Focus 91
Finding 1 Summary 94
Finding 2. Reciprocity Contributed to the Part-Time Faculty Member
Having a Sense of Belonging 94
Theme 1: Presence of Reciprocal Relationship Contributed to
Belonging 96
Theme 2: Absence of Reciprocal Relationship Contributed to
Exclusion 103
Absence of department effort 104
Part-time faculty member’s efforts rebuffed 105
Finding 2 Summary 108
Finding 3. Part-Time Faculty Who Desired and Committed Energy
Towards Involvement Had a Sense of Belonging 108
Theme 1: Belonging Due to Desire and Committed Energy
Towards Involvement 110
Theme 2: Lack of Recognition of Part-Time Faculty Member’s
Contributions 114
Finding 3 Summary 117
Conclusion 118
Chapter Five: Discussion, Implications, and Recommendations 120
Summary of Findings 121
Implications and Recommendations for Practice, Policy and
Research 122
Implications for Practice 123
Connection to Department 124
Connection with Part-time Faculty 125
Implications and Recommendations for Policy 127
Implications and Recommendations for Further Research 130
Conclusion 131
References 133
Appendix A: Information Sheet 139
Appendix B: Interview Protocols 141

PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 5
List of Tables

Table 1: Schein’s Culture Categories and Descriptions 19
Table 2: Comparison of Transactional and Relational Psychological Contracts 34
Table 3: McClure and Brown’s Constituents of Belonging and Work 50
Table 4: Characteristics of Study Participants 71
Table 5: Characteristics of Study Participants who Experienced a Sense
of Belonging 85
Table 6: Characteristics of Study Participants who Experienced Exclusion 85

PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 6
List of Figures

Figure 1: Shore et al.’s Inclusion Framework 43
Figure 2: Barak’s Model of Organizational Inclusion 46
Figure 3: Conceptual Framework 59
Figure 4: Self-Schema 61
Figure 5: Organizational Schema 62

PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 7
Abstract
Although part-time faculty positions in higher education continue to increase, reports
reveal the lack of acceptance and valuing of part-time faculty across higher education
institutions. Yet few qualitative studies exist that explore the experiences and perceptions of part-
time faculty within their academic cultures. This qualitative case study specifically investigated
part-time faculty members’ perceptions of belonging or exclusion within their higher education
institutions. The study was based on interviews with 14 part-time faculty members from two
separate higher education institutions who represented a range of years of teaching experience
and disciplines. The findings revealed that, in general, part-time faculty perceived a sense of
belonging when their socio-emotional needs were met and reciprocal relationships were present
within their academic culture. Additionally, part-time faculty who desired and dedicated energy
towards involvement in their academic cultures had a sense of belonging.

PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 8
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
The number of contingent, including both full-time and part-time, positions has risen
nationally from 43% in 1975 to 70% in 2011 in all higher education institutions (AAUP, 2013).
The numbers of part-time faculty have had the most significant growth increasing by 422.1%
between 1970 to 2003 (Schuster & Finkelstein, 2006). In fact, 59% of contingent faculty work in
4-year institutions (AFT, 2010). Of these, 33%, or one in three, work at public 4-year and 26%
work at private (AFT, 2010). The remaining 41% work at 2-year colleges (AFT, 2010). The
American Association of University Professors (AAUP) explains the title of contingent faculty
can be considered an umbrella term that encompasses many different types of faculty: adjuncts,
post-doctorate students, teaching assistants, non-tenure-track faculty, clinical faculty, part-time
faculty, lecturers, instructors, or non-senate faculty (“Contingent Faculty Positions,” 2016).
While their titles and responsibilities might vary,
1
this diverse group often shares a lack of
security in their positions and lack of support from the higher education institutions that employ
them. A growing number of disciplinary groups and unions have begun to report the poor and
unfair working conditions that contingent faculty members face when compared to the higher
levels of security and support experienced by tenure-track faculty (Kezar & Sam, 2014). The
experiences of contingent faculty are quite varied; however, the poor working conditions of
contingent faculty may include low pay, lack of office space and supplies, and the inability to
participate in faculty governance. These working conditions often contribute to their exclusion
from the organizational culture (Chronister, Gansneder, & Harper, 2001; Kezar, 2013; Kezar &
Sam, 2013; Purcell, 2007). Additionally, the lack of support from the institutions that employ
them reflects the predominantly negative departmental cultures and working environments

1
For this paper, the term “contingent faculty” encompasses all full- and part-time non-tenure-track instructors. The
term “part-time faculty” is used to describe non-tenure-track instructors who work part-time.
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 9
contingent faculty face (Kezar & Sam, 2013). The large increase of contingent faculty members
across the country has resulted in many questions concerning and growing attention surrounding
the experiences of contingent faculty. This study focused on part-time faculty members’
perception of belongingness in the higher education institutions in which they worked. The
remainder of this chapter presents the background of the problem, the statement of the problem,
the purpose of the study, the significance of the study, and the organization of the study.
Background of the Problem
Three-fourths of all faculty teaching in the United States of America are considered
contingent faculty, which is almost a tenfold increase from 1975 (Hoeller, 2014). The increase in
contingent faculty dates back to the need for more faculty in the growing number of higher
education institutions after World War II. The post-war increase in births or the “baby boom” led
to a rise in college enrollments and also contributed to an increase in the use of part-time faculty
that peaked to 22% in 1970 (Jacobs, 1998). As the number of contingent faculty grew, the
number of tenure positions shrank from 75% of full-time tenured college instructors in 1960 to
only 27% more recently (Stainburn, 2010). These gradual changes in higher education have
impacted the composition of faculty at many institutions across the nation. At present, a very
limited number of full-time tenure-track positions are available for instructors who seek to make
a career serving as a higher education professor. However, higher education institutions hire
contingent faculty for their professional expertise that they can bring to their instruction (Jacobs,
1998; Thedwall, 2008). Contingent faculty accept these typically part-time teaching positions
because they enjoy teaching or benefit from access to the university’s resources; but some would
have preferred full-time tenure-track positions (Kezar, 2012). Jacobs (1998) states the primary
reason for hiring contingent faculty has changed from a need for specialists to a need for quick
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 10
and temporary instructors. Contingent faculty can fill the positions of full-time faculty who are
on leave, can be hired quickly when student enrollment is higher than expected, and can be paid
less than full-time faculty. Yet, even though more contingent faculty members are present in all
types of higher education institutions and higher education institutions desire highly qualified
contingent faculty with professional experience, contingent faculty report experiencing
unsatisfactory working conditions and higher education institutions fail to acknowledge their
contributions to higher education (Morton, 2012).
Due to the rapid increase in number of part-time faculty over a short period of time, there
is often confusion as to the titles used to describe this population of faculty. The terms non-
tenure track faculty and contingent faculty are used to denote a category of faculty that includes
both non-tenure track full-time and part-time faculty members. Full-time non-tenure-track
faculty are also referred to as lecturers, instructors, or clinical faculty and part-time non-tenure-
track faculty are usually referred to as adjuncts (The Delphi Project, 2017). Higher education
administrators are attempting to clarify the classifications but predominantly for the purposes of
employment and compensation. The administration’s definitions of each classification often do
not reach students who are the ones who interact with faculty on a daily basis and must figure out
how to address them. In an article titled, “That’s Doctor Instructor to You” (Schuman, 2014),
students often are unsure of how to refer to the various types of professors they encounter and
the author advises it is the professor or instructor’s responsibility to clarify the title to the
students since no one else will.
Higher education institutions have devoted little attention to contingent faculty which has
resulted in poor working conditions for contingent faculty that include: low pay, little or no job
security, little or no participation in departmental decisions, little or no representation in faculty
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 11
governance, usually no office space, and a heavy teaching workload (Hammond, 2012). Given
their working conditions and lack of recognition, contingent faculty have increasingly turned to
report their experiences in social media, produce studies in academic journals, and unionize
across campuses to have their voices heard (Fredrickson, 2015). Hoeller (2014) adds that the
economic recession of 2007-2009 resulted in growing attention from the public on the value of
education they are receiving from college instructors. All of this has contributed to growing
public attention and public media has begun to highlight the inequalities faced by contingent
faculty with headlines such as: “The highly educated, badly paid, often abused adjunct
professors” from the Los Angeles Times (Allen, 2013), “Adjunct professors fight for crumbs on
campus” from The Washington Post (McCarthy, 2014), and “There is no excuse for how
universities treat adjuncts” from The Atlantic (Fredrickson, 2015). Yet, even with the increase in
the number of contingent faculty over the past 40 years and the increase in reports such as these,
there is still a lack of understanding concerning the experiences of contingent faculty.
Discussions of the poor working conditions part-time faculty face typically focus on low
pay and nonexistent job security. However, there are much greater implications of these poor
working conditions that greatly impact the well-being of the individuals who serve as part-time
faculty. The University of California-Berkeley’s Center for Labor Research and Education
(2015) found that 25% of part-time college faculty receive public assistance, such as food stamps
or cash welfare. The inability to pay for basic necessities in life such as food and health care
cause high levels of stress. A study on non-tenure-track faculty found that the “contingency” or
“precariousness” (Reevy & Deason, 2014, p. 13) of their positions was reported by part-time
faculty as being the most significant stressor. Additionally, the study found that non-tenure-track
faculty use functional (i.e., planning and active coping) and dysfunctional (i.e., behavioral
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 12
disengagement and substance abuse) coping mechanisms to deal with stressors in their higher
education institutions. The intense stressors part-time faculty face within their higher education
institutions and the lack of support they receive to compensate in some way for these stressors
impact their lives in multiple dimensions such as emotional, financial, and professional.
Although much of the literature on contingent faculty frames their inclusion in academic
departments as either satisfactory or non-satisfactory or supportive or non-supportive, little
qualitative research exists that allows contingent faculty to explain their perceptions of their
status and position in their institutions. Jacobs (as cited in Wallin, 2004) summarizes treatment of
contingent faculty by higher education institutions as a “contingent expendable workforce that
allows colleges to quickly respond to changing environmental conditions while saving
considerable dollars by not employing full-time faculty” (p. 375). Purcell (2007) states that
contingent faculty must appear grateful for their positions to their university colleagues yet often
have feelings of frustration, bitterness and even rage at the “various forms of oppression, both
material and cultural” (p. 127) they face. However, some studies have found that part-time
faculty members have higher levels of satisfaction than their full-time counterparts (Levinson,
Kaufman, & Bickel, 1993; Socolar & Kelman, 2002; Townsend, 2006). A majority of contingent
faculty do not desire to become full-time faculty because they usually have full-time careers
outside of education (Wallin, 2004). Given this discrepancy and lack of qualitative studies on
contingent faculty members’ experiences, a greater understanding of who contingent faculty are
and their beliefs about their position in higher education is needed now that contingent faculty
represent half of all faculty in higher education. This study focused on the experiences of part-
time faculty in order to learn what contributed to their sense of belonging in their institutions.

PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 13
Statement of the Problem
For this study, I focused on faculty who taught part-time in higher education institutions.
Part-time faculty are treated as temporary hires who are often given few opportunities to
participate in higher education institutions’ culture or contribute to decisions. Further research is
needed to understand how part-time faculty perceive belonging and whether or not it is desired.
Much of the past research examining part-time faculty members’ experiences has been
quantitative. Qualitative research is needed to further understand how they feel as members of an
academic community and to understand that which contributes to part-time faculty members’
sense of belonging or exclusion.
Purpose of the Study
Despite the large and growing number of part-time faculty members in higher education
today, little qualitative data exists that explains their experiences in their universities. The rise in
contingent faculty unions and greater media attention on the poor working conditions of
contingent faculty reveal the lack of acceptance and fair treatment of this faculty population.
Given the lack of information on this large group of faculty, the purpose of this study was to
understand the aspects that contribute to part-time faculty members having a sense of belonging.
The following question guided this study: What do part-time faculty perceive contributes to their
sense of belonging to or exclusion from a university’s academic culture?
Significance of the Study
A case study was conducted with part-time faculty to collect data that provided insight
into their experiences. This study was significant because qualitative data was collected from
part-time instructors in order to better understand what they perceived contributed to their sense
of belonging in their academic departments, schools and universities. This study is important
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 14
because it sheds light on how part-time faculty felt about their position in the departments,
schools, and higher education institutions they worked within. It also gave further information on
how part-time faculty perceive themselves in relation to their supervisors and faculty colleagues.
Organization of the Study
This dissertation is organized into five chapters. Chapter one provides an introduction
and background to the problem. It presents the context of part-time faculty working in higher
education and the factors that have led them to feel like a marginalized group. The purpose and
significance of the study is to understand how part-time faculty perceive a sense of belonging
within their departments, schools, and universities. Chapter two provides a literature review and
conceptual framework that was used as the foundation for the study. First, the literature review
examines literature on organizational belonging. Second, literature on belonging is then
reviewed. Chapter three provides the methods that were used for data collection and analysis. It
also provides the research design. A description of the settings and participants is also included.
It concludes with the limitations, credibility, ethics and credibility and trustworthiness of the
study. Chapter four provides a discussion of the findings from the analysis of the data. Chapter
five concludes with recommendations and implications for practice, policy and further research.

PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 15
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
The study examined part-time faculty members’ perceptions of belonging or exclusion
within the higher education institutions in which they worked. The following question was
asked: What do adjunct faculty perceive contributes to their sense of belonging to or exclusion
from a university’s academic culture? In order to answer this question, I drew on two bodies of
literature: organizational culture and belonging.
First, I review theories relating to organizational culture in order to identify the
characteristics that adjunct faculty members encounter within their departments and institutions
that can result in perceived belonging or exclusion. The literature on organizational culture
explores concepts that are inherent and contribute to employees’ understanding of their work
environment yet that are constantly occurring and changing phenomena: time, space, social
information, interaction rituals, etc. Specifically, how employees make sense out of these
invisible and subjective aspects will inform a culture and the employee’s participation within it
(Harris, 1994; Lawrence & Corwin, 2003; Schein, 2010). Violation such as an organization not
fulfilling its promises to an individual can lead to extreme emotional reactions (Rousseau, 1989;
Parks, Kidder & Gallagher 1998). Within organization culture, I examine theories on
organizational culture and sense-making within organizations. I then narrow down to focus on
local work contexts, semiotics, and psychological contract theory.
Second, I review theories and empirical studies exploring the development of a sense of
belonging in order to understand the concept of belonging and the aspects in an organization that
contribute or impede an adjunct faculty members’ perception of belonging. Both theoretical and
empirical works are included to provide definitions of belonging and how it is enacted within an
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 16
organizational setting. I focus on literature that discusses development of belonging in
workplaces and studies that discuss how individuals perceive a sense of belonging or exclusion.
This chapter explores literature on organizational culture and belonging. I begin with
theoretical pieces on organizational culture and then turn to theoretical literature and empirical
studies on belonging. I conclude with my conceptual framework that provided the foundation for
my qualitative methodology.
Organizational Culture
The organizational culture literature provides insight into how employees think, feel,
perceive value and act as guided by the ideas, meanings, and beliefs of an organization’s cultural
or socially shared nature (Alvesson, 2002). Organizations possess their own cultures formed by
shared sets of values, beliefs, and norms that guide the actions and attitudes of members
(Schneider, Ehrhart, & Macey, 2013). These common beliefs are often taken for granted,
primarily because they are intangible, but are necessary for an organization’s activity. Alvesson
(2002) emphasizes an important distinction that culture is not primarily inside employees’ heads
but is somewhere between the heads of a group of people within an organization where symbols
and meanings are publicly expressed. Individuals create and understand their own meanings but
these may or may not contribute to the organization’s culture. An individual’s perception and his
or her experiences with the symbols and their meanings are unique to that individual and the
ways in which an organization’s culture are shared to the newcomer varies by organization.
I chose to focus on theory rather than empirical literature because the organizational
theory helped me to understand how culture contributed to perceptions of belonging whereas the
organizational culture empirical literature spoke to other aspects that were not as applicable.
Instead theories were used to understand how organizational culture contributed to an
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 17
individual’s perception of belonging or marginalization. The following literature discusses
organizational culture theories and its influence on the experiences of employees and I also
review literature on semiotics and psychological contracts. Semiotics helped me to understand
how groups created a shared meaning by revealing the processes and parts of communication
that reflected the culture it took place within. Psychological contracts represent the unwritten
expectations between an employer and employee and the trust that can be built when the
psychological contracts are met or the damage to trust when a psychological contract is violated.
I begin by presenting literature that broadly discusses organizational culture and then turn to
literature that focuses on local work contexts, semiotics, and psychological contracts.
Organizational Culture Theory
Schein’s (2010) organizational culture model presents the cultural aspects that are taught
to or withheld from newcomers by long standing members, the observable cultural phenomena
within organizations that newcomers learn from, and the characteristics that influence internal
integration of employees. Schein (2010) also explains the reasons why subcultures form in an
organization. His model provided me with insight that I applied to understanding the experiences
of part-time faculty as newcomers to a university and academic department, how subcultures of
part-time faculty could form, and what might contribute to a part-time faculty member’s
integration into a university and academic department.
Schein (2010) states culture is an abstract concept of observable events. Culture reveals
the “phenomena that are below the surface, that are powerful in their impact but invisible and to
a considerable degree unconscious” (Schein, 2010, p. 14). These observable events can increase
our understanding of events that occur within the organization’s environment that are mysterious
or difficult to understand. He defines the culture of a group as:
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 18
A pattern of shared basic assumptions learned by a group as it solved its problems of
external adaptation and internal integration, which has worked well enough to be
considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to
perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems. (p. 18)
Schein believes identifying and defining the criteria used to determine who is in or accepted and
who is out or marginalized from a work group is one of the best ways to understand a culture.
The group who decides who is and is not allowed to integrate into the organizational culture is
enacting culture formation and maintenance. Newcomers must acquire the appropriate types of
knowledge and customs to be able to integrate into the culture and long-standing members must
maintain certain types of knowledge and customs to survive within the culture.
Schein (2010) identifies several culture categories that group members within a culture
share or hold in common. Each of these categories are intangible phenomena. These categories
also reveal how a culture forms, evolves, and destructs. He states an analogy to understand these
cultural categories is that culture is to a group what personality or character is to an individual.
The following table presents the culture categories and an explanation of each.

PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 19
Table 1
Schein’s Culture Categories and Descriptions
Categories to Describe Culture Description
Observable behavior
regularities when people
interact
Includes language, evolving customs and traditions, and
rituals used in a variety of situations.
Group norms Standards and values that evolve in work groups.
Espoused values Both published and publicly announced values that a group
claims it is trying to achieve.
Formal philosophy Mission and ideological principles that guide actions of
organization and departments towards all involved entities
(i.e., employees, stakeholders, and customers).
Rules of the game Implicit, unwritten social rules on how to get along in the
organization that apply to all organization members (i.e.,
“the way we do things around here”).
Climate The feeling conveyed in a group by the way members
interact with each other as well as outsiders.
Embedded skills Competencies of group members to accomplish specific
tasks and can be passed down to newcomers even though it
is not necessarily in writing.
Habits of thinking, mental
models, and/or linguistic
paradigms
Shared cognitive frames that guide perceptions, thought and
language used by members of a group and taught to new
members.
Shared meanings Emergent understandings created by group members as they
interact with each other.
Root metaphors or integrating
symbols
Ways in which groups evolve to characterize themselves,
which may or may not be appreciated consciously but are
embodied in buildings and other material artifacts of the
group. Focus is on the emotional and aesthetic response.
Formal rituals and celebrations Ways in which groups celebrate key events that reflect
important values or important passages by members, such as
promotion or milestones.
Note. The cultural categories and their descriptions are provided by Schein.
Schein (2010) states analyzing how the rules are taught to newcomers is a beneficial way
of understanding a culture but core tenets of a culture are not taught to newcomers. Core tenets
are shared, acquired, and learned by newcomers specifically from long-standing members.
Therefore, the author states that culture is a “mechanism of social control” (Schein, 2010, p. 19)
because shared assumptions within a culture explicitly manipulate members into perceiving,
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 20
thinking, and feeling in certain ways are and must be passed down from the old members to the
new members. Culture can be observed by newcomers at different levels; a level means the
degree to which it is actually observable. The levels range from easy to difficult to observe: (1)
artifacts, (2) espoused beliefs and values, (3) basic underlying assumptions. Artifacts include
those that can be physically experienced such as actions or things that can be seen, heard or felt.
Visible artifacts also include language, products, and style (i.e., clothing, manners, and stories).
Although easy to observe, artifacts can be difficult to decipher. Espoused beliefs and values were
initially created by the organization’s founder but have been influenced by the prevailing group
or leaders of an organization. Espoused beliefs and values are more difficult to observe than
artifacts. Basic underlying assumptions clarify what to pay attention to and the meaning
attributed to things. Newcomers who are taught and treated consistently with these basic
underlying assumptions eventually begin to behave accordingly in order to have stability and
predictability within their workplace. Basic underlying assumptions are the most difficult of the
three observations of a culture. Therefore, an individual will experience both aspects of a culture
that are observable and possibly aspects that can only be shared by long-standing members.
While this complex process of teaching by long-standing members and learning and
observing by newcomers occurs, organizations must effectively integrate internal processes to
continue achieving organizational goals. All organizations face the problem of integration of
internal processes to ensure an adequate level of capacity is developed to continue to survive and
adapt. Schein (2010) states that a group cannot “accomplish tasks, survive, and grow” (p. 93) if
the group cannot create effective internal relationships. Since uncertainty and anxiety is not
beneficial to a group, every individual of the group must come together to create a system of
communication and a language to understand what is occurring in their environment. Schein
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 21
states there are six internal processes that must be figured out by a work group in order to
promote internal integration: (a) creating a common language and conceptual categories, (b)
defining group boundaries and criteria for inclusion and exclusion, (c) distributing power,
authority, and status, (d) developing norms of trust, intimacy, friendship, and love (individuals
will usually use their own family model in work situations), (e) defining and allocating rewards
and punishments, and (f) managing the unmanageable and explaining the unexplainable (i.e.,
issues not under human control such as weather and natural disasters as well as legends, myths,
etc.). These internal processes represent more abstract and deeper issues occurring within each
individual’s search to understand the nature of reality and truth, the nature of human
relationships and the nature of human activity.
As organizations grow and develop more complex hierarchies, boundaries also become
more complex and the problem arises of the inability to define clear external and inclusionary
internal boundaries. Large organizations do not just have one culture, although they may try to,
because subcultures will develop within a large organization. The author defines a subculture as
sharing “many of the assumptions of the total organization but also hold assumptions beyond
those of the total organization, usually reflecting their functional tasks, the occupations of their
members, or their unique experiences” (Schein, 2010, p. 55). Shared assumptions create
subcultures within an organization or subcultures form due to the common experiences within
hierarchies. A culture can also reflect a group’s efforts to cope and learn. Therefore, the growth
of a subculture may reveal the beliefs or processes a specific group was not able to adhere to and
the new beliefs and processes the group has developed on its own. However, subcultures can also
develop due to inconsistencies in organizational systems and procedures. Subcultures can be
destructive to an organization’s internal integration process because consensus of achieving an
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 22
organization’s goals requires behavioral regularities. Behavioral regularities ensure stability and
recognized patterns are in place. Therefore, subcultures that enact behaviors supportive of an
organization’s goals will enrich the organizational culture but subcultures that enact destructive
behaviors will be destructive to the organization’s goals.
Individual Sensemaking within Organizations
Since Schein (2010) focuses on both organizational culture at the group and individual
levels, Harris’s (1994) schema theory is important because it devotes further attention to the
experiences of individuals within an organizational culture. Harris (1994) states organizational
members have a patterned system of organization specific schemas. Each individual’s
organization specific schema holds cultural knowledge, meanings, and consensual sense-making
that are characteristic of the culture. Within the organization, individuals make sense of their
experiences primarily because of the contrived mental dialogues within the individual and
contextually-relevant dialogues with other individuals or groups. Understanding individual as
well as the organizational specific schemas explains the cultural experience and sense-making
phenomena of individuals, which both connect to the culture of the organization.
Individual sense-making occurs in organizations when an individual encounters novel or
confusing situations. Maitlis (2005) defines sense-making as a “process of social construction in
which individuals attempt to interpret and explain sets of cues from their environments” (p. 21).
Sense-making allows people to create rational accounts that help to explain uncertain or
ambiguous events. Individual sense-making could help in the process of understanding the three
levels of a culture, as described by Schein (2010), which are increasingly difficult to observe.
Organizational sense-making is a social process, yet Maitlis (2005) states that the social
processes that form organizational sense-making have mostly been unexamined.
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 23
Harris (1994) defines schemas as: “the dynamic, cognitive knowledge structures
regarding specific concepts, entities, and events used by individuals to encode and represent
incoming information efficiently” (p. 310). In other words, a schema is a thought process an
individual creates to understand one’s own experiences about how the world works. Further,
schemas guide the acquisition and processing of information that influences an individual’s
future behavior. How an individual perceives and interprets events is determined by the schemas
applied to the events. Schema-based sense-making can also help the individual to fill in missing
information, which can create incorrect assumptions and perceptual mistakes. These incorrect
assumptions and perceptual mistakes may prevent or complicate the integration of the individual
into an environment. Schemas develop and expand as new information is processed, thus
resulting in schema dynamism. However, schemas may not always be smoothly processed,
especially when new information conflicts with an individual’s prior knowledge within a
schema, the following may occur: (a) the information will be ignored, (b) the information will be
revised to fit current schemas, or (c) the information will create either a schema modification or
an additional schema category. Therefore, the author (Harris, 1994) states that schemas can
either help individuals make sense of the world or blind individuals to the features of an
organization that threaten the validity of their schemas.
Harris lists five types of schemas that individuals will encounter in the organizational
setting: (a) self-schemas, (b) person schemas, (c) organization schemas, (d) object/concept
schemas, and (e) event schemas. For this literature review, only self-schemas and organization
schemas will be discussed because of their relevance to the ways in which part-time faculty do or
do not feel a sense of belonging in their higher education institutions. Self-schemas are the
theories an individual believes about personal aspects of him/herself in relation to the
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 24
organization, for example, an individual’s personality, values, roles, and behavior (e.g., “I am a
white female part-time instructor who is ethical and works hard and values my profession and
family”). Self-schemas are not held only within the individual but are displayed in an
individual’s reactions to organizational events. The individual’s reactions are consistent with his
or her self-identity. Organization schemas reveal how individuals in the organization cognitively
understand the culture. This type of schema is the knowledge an individual has of groups within
an organization or subgroups (e.g., “the Humanities department”) as entities separate from their
individual members (e.g., “the adjuncts in the Humanities department”). The organization
schemas are most similar to an individual’s knowledge of the organization’s culture or
subgroup’s culture. Altogether, schemas reveal the information individuals use to understand
organizational life.
For a culture to be apparent within organizational cultures, schemas must be present and
must also be similar among organizational members. Harris (1994) states that for similar
schemas to develop, “all members of the community [should] have a vested interest in the
establishment of common meanings so that a predictable social order is possible” (p. 313). This
relates to Schein’s (2010) concept of internal integration: every individual of a group must agree
to create a system of communication and a language to have a mutual understanding of what is
occurring in their environment. Shared experiences and consistent exposure to social cues allows
individuals’ schemas to become analogous. Schemas more easily develop among subgroups
within an organization as opposed to individuals within the whole organization since the
subgroups tend to share common experiences that are more specific and well-defined. Social
information processing also contributes to the development of a shared schema because, over
time, an individual’s schemas become more similar and the social information they share with
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 25
other organizational members becomes clearer and more consistent. Harris (1994) states the
group’s shared schema knowledge will then become self-perpetuating.
Unlike Schein (2010), who focuses more on the processes in which an organizational
culture develops, Harris (1994) focuses on the interaction an individual has in the culture-making
process. Harris (1994) states that one of the main ways culture is reflected in an individual’s
sense-making is through the schemas that are most salient as chosen and interpreted by the long-
standing organizational members. Additionally, social information greatly increases the
likelihood of schema activation. Finally, an individual’s motives and goals contribute to schema
salience. An individual’s motives and goals are processed in self-schemas but influenced by
organization schemas.
To understand how schemas are used to make sense of organizational experiences, Harris
(1994) recommends a “mental debate” perspective. Schemas guide organizational sense-making
for an individual in two ways: to place various stimuli into categories and determine the meaning
of a stimulus so an appropriate response is given. Harris (1994) states that how individuals
choose to behave in the social settings of organizations is in response to mental dialogues
between themselves and other individuals or groups. Therefore, an organization’s culture is
reflected in various types of schemas that are salient and take shape due to the social sense-
making process of an individual’s mental dialogue between self and others. Therefore, as Schein
(2010) stated, individuals will learn rules of behavior from long-standing members but will make
mistakes or experience confusion regarding what is not as salient or observable. Newcomers who
are inexperienced in an organization’s culture will only engage in conscious, reflective sense-
making, but over time, will engage in unconscious processing of culture.
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 26
Harris (1994) acknowledges that there is no agreement on how to share beliefs and
values, to what extent beliefs and values should be shared, and how to measure the sharing of
beliefs and values. He states many organizational scholars argue for studying organizational
subcultures rather than the larger organizational culture to find the answers. To determine if
subcultures exist, is by determining how easy it is for an individual to construct a group’s
perspective (e.g., “my subgroup” and “they subgroup”) within a mental dialogue. This is the
reason why Harris (1994) believes newcomers of an organizational subgroup are excellent
candidates for an organizational culture study.
Theory of Local Work Contexts
Lawrence and Corwin’s (2003) theoretical model identifies characteristics of local work
contexts that contribute to the acceptance or exclusion of part-time employees. They specifically
focus on the relationship between the dominant interactions rituals of an organization’s culture
and the effects on employees and manager’s reactions to part-time employees. Time has an
impact on the how the dominant interaction rituals are or are not communicated or conveyed to
part-time employees. The authors state: “Being there (being present in time and space) has been
a central element in much professional work; consequently, being there less challenges the
identity and ideology associated with professional employment” (Lawrence & Corwin, 2003, p.
924). Schein (2010) also discusses the importance of how time and space are defined and
understood by an organization’s culture. Time and space are often taken for granted in
organizational cultures because they are intangible phenomena. Yet, workers have very strong
emotional reactions when assumptions about time and space are violated. These strong emotional
reactions occur more so for time than space because, Schein states: “Ultimately, time is so
critical because it is, in a sense, so invisible, so taken for granted, and so difficult to speak about”
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 27
(2010, p. 162). Because of these powerful emotional reactions, Schein (2010) states that in how
we define reality, time and space represent the deepest level of assumptions we hold and
including what we will cling to in order to avoid uncertainty and anxiety. Full-time workers’
assumptions about time and space are different than part-time workers and that “part-time
professionals may disrupt the rhythms of the organizational culture itself” (Lawrence & Corwin,
2003, p. 931). Therefore, the author’s model explores the ways in which part-time professionals
cause disruptions of space and time in the workplace.
Lawrence and Corwin (2003) believe that part-time professional workers present a
challenge to organizations. The “local work context” is the situation or place in which an
individual is located within an organization. Since professional work and time are socially
constructed within local organizational contexts, the organization’s local culture plays a
dominant role in determining the acceptance or exclusion of the part-time employee. Also, the
type of work, nature of the work relationships, and organizational commitments vary in their
creation of situations that accept or marginalize part-time employees. In some work contexts,
part-time employees may be desired and in others part-time workers may be greatly disliked.
Therefore, part-time professional work patterns may violate deeply held assumptions within an
organization about time, space and the nature of professionals.
The degree to which a part-time professional employee will be accepted or marginalized
will vary significantly depending on organizations and cultures. Some organizational cultures
will accept part-time work arrangements as a norm while others will see it as a violation of the
“correct” use of work time. Lawrence and Corwin (2003) argue that time may or may not play an
important role in legitimatizing the part-time nature of certain work arrangements due to the
pattern of interactions and relationships that characterize the local work context (or
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 28
organizational culture). An interaction ritual “connects the cultures of social groups with the
micro-interactions that are enacted within those cultures and which together constitute those
cultures” (Lawrence & Corwin, 2003, p. 929). An interaction ritual is any routine interaction
between two or more people that contains some symbolic significance. Although these include
meetings, interviews, coffee breaks, and even after-work social events, the authors state that
these also include the growing number of electronic exchanges, such as by email, social media,
or text messaging. Interaction rituals establish the character, frequency and meaning for work
time within a local work context and the expectations employees hold concerning these rituals.
Therefore, interaction rituals structure work relationships and impact the social construction of
how work time is viewed by employees.
The culture of a local work context reveals the interaction rituals that members may
participate in. The interaction rituals establish who can be a member of the organizational culture
and allow members to negotiate their membership status. Participation in key interaction rituals
may lead to acceptance into a group. However, members who are not able to participate in key
interaction rituals may not be accepted by the group. Missed participation in key interaction
rituals leads to marginalization. Or, Lave and Wenger’s (1991) work on legitimate participation
speaks to the lack of acceptance individuals may feel but perception of active participation,
therefore the part-time faculty may perceive legitimate participation because of the work and
effort they dedicate to the courses they teach. Part-time employees will have fewer opportunities
to participate in key interaction rituals given the reduced hours they work and possibly how full-
time workers may perceive them as having a lower status.
Lawrence and Corwin (2003) believe there are four key characteristics of an interaction
ritual that affect the acceptance or exclusion of part-time employees: a) ritual density (frequency,
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 29
face-to-face), (b) uniformity of attention across participants, (c) emotional intensity, and (d)
frequency of order-giving and order-taking. The level of impact of these four characteristics on
the following three dimensions of local work context affect the acceptance of part-time
professionals: (1) employees’ experience of the workgroup boundary being strong or weak, (2)
pressure of conformity within the work context, (3) level of stratification within the work
context.
Based on their research, Lawrence and Corwin (2003) state part-time professionals must
choose from two options of interaction rituals to prevent marginalization by coworkers and
managers: compliance with existing rituals or the innovation of new rituals. A part-time
professional who adopts a compliance strategy requires the individual to participate to whatever
extent possible in key rituals that define membership within the organization’s culture. The
authors emphasize that the rituals are defined in the terms of the organization. Lawrence and
Corwin equate this compliance strategy to accommodation. Whereas a compliance strategy
requires an individual to follow the organization’s terms for participation, an innovation strategy
requires the opposite. An innovation strategy is when the individual attempts to redefine the
terms of organizational membership by creating new rituals. Lawrence and Corwin (2003) state
that the employee is not disregarding the former terms of membership but rather substituting or
creating new rituals within the organization. Through substitution or creation, the part-time
professional reforms how performance and commitment as defined by space and time are
measured within the organization. In essence, the part-time professional is questioning the
dominant patterns of interaction rituals. However, successful innovation strategies require the
part-time employee to have significant influence or greater access to organizational resources
and can be quite difficult to enact.
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 30
Semiotics
The study of semiotics allows researchers to understand the processes and parts of
communication that reflect the culture within which that communication takes place. Barley
(1983) uses the field of semiotics to understand how groups create a shared system of meaning
through communication. Semiotics is the study of communication in an effort to identify and
understand signification. Semiotics includes signs, narratives, rules, myths, ideologies, social
discourse, and more. Semiotics is embedded in what Schein (2010) calls the “rules of behavior.”
Barley (1983) uses semiotics to understand how members of a specific occupation and
organizational setting use codes to communicate work duties and professional activities. How
and to whom these codes are communicated is important in understanding who is accepted or
marginalized in an organization’s culture.
Signification is the process and the content in which events, words, behaviors, and
objects provide meaning for a community. Barley (1983) states communication of a community
is important because embedded within a group’s communication are shared codes that they have
constructed and agree upon. To understand a culture, it is important to identify the expressions,
contents and rules that the members of the culture have chosen, agree upon, and use to make
sense of their world. The degree to which the members of a social group will act similarly relates
to the degree that they share the same codes for understanding the world. Barley (1983) states it
is important to recognize overt behaviors and emotions and the subsequent sense-making enacted
by individuals in response to signs. In order for an individual to become a member of a social
group, the individual must learn and appropriately respond or add to the chains of signification.
An example of this is the accepted norms that occur within a staff meeting. All staff meetings
have a similar purpose but include a range of diverse actions. In order to be able to anticipate the
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 31
actions of a particular staff meeting and to act out the appropriate responses, one must be
familiar with the meeting by being previously taught its elements and attending enough staff
meetings to anticipate its elements. The observation of and participation in signification will
greatly increase an individual’s understanding of a culture and ability to contribute to it.
Semiotics reveals two conclusions about occupational and organizational cultures: (a)
every aspect of an organizational culture can be considered a sign that represents the
organization’s culture and (b) conclusions can be made when codes repeatedly emerge within an
organizational culture. First, a semiotics perspective attributes the same level of significance to
every sign, even including what may appear to be mundane. This aids the researcher in
comprehending what Barley (1983) calls “setting specific” knowledge that reveal the differences
and variances in understanding between two employees or two organizational groups. Second, a
coherence of perspective emerges when codes exist within several types of actions or
communication and are similarly structured. Therefore, an employee will have to develop codes
and signs that are similar to other coworkers in order to be an accepted member of a social
group.
Psychological Contract Theory
Psychological contracts are considered determinants for behavior of individuals within an
organization and are part of an organization’s culture. Rousseau (1989) defines psychological
contracts as the “individual’s beliefs regarding the terms and conditions of a reciprocal exchange
agreement between that focal person and another party” (p. 123). Within organizational theory,
psychological contracts are “unwritten expectations that operate between employees and
managers” (Rousseau, 1989, p. 126). The basic steps of a psychological contract are that a party
makes a promise and some form of recompense is offered in return from another party,
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 32
consequently creating a reciprocal obligation between the two parties. Trust and a sense of a
stable relationship are involved in the development of psychological contracts.
Psychological contracts are comprised of the following characteristics: (a) an
individual’s belief of a reciprocal obligation between the individual and an organization, (b) one
part has either paid or offered services to another party in exchange for that party to reciprocate,
(c) the promise and reciprocation are highly subjective, (d) yet, the individual believes in the
psychological contract and trusts the organization will treat the contract as part of the
relationship between the two. Psychological contracts reveal the consistency between what is
promised to or understood by an individual and what is actually received by the individual.
However, psychological contracts are inherently subjective. When considering a psychological
contract, it is important to think about the consistency between what is promised or understood
and what is actually received and its consequences to an individual’s well-being and perspective.
Psychological contracts exist at the individual level and are created between an individual
and the organization. Psychological contracts can be assessed by an individual’s self-reported
perceptions of contingent expectations or by studying the connections between sets of
expectations. Like Harris (1994) and Schein (2010), Rousseau (1989) studied new recruits’
perceptions of their obligations to an employer and beliefs of what the employer owed them.
Psychological contracts exist when an individual perceives that a contribution to the organization
should result in some form of reciprocity. An individual’s belief in the contract will be made
stronger depending upon the extent to which the contract is explicit and verifiable. For example,
an individual will have a stronger psychological contract if the promise is presented in writing.
Also, the individual will have greater belief in the contract if the promise is made before the
employee’s contribution to the organization as opposed to post-contribution. Several facets of an
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 33
organization can contribute to the likelihood of an individual’s trust in the contract, for example
having a reputation as a stable employer or organizational commitment to reward hard work and
loyalty. These organizational aspects result in greater retention of employees and more cycles of
contribution and reciprocity, which causes the employee to have stronger psychological contracts
with the organization. Therefore, Rousseau (1989) states that psychological contracts are tied to
the individual’s commitment to the organization.
Rousseau adapted the idea of differentiating transactional and relational contracts from
legal research as a way to categorize psychological contracts (Conway and Briner, 2005).
Transactional contracts are of a finite amount of time and concerned primarily with an economic
transaction. Relational contracts are more amorphous and are concerned with an exchange of
value-based, socio-emotional and economic resources. Relational contracts can exist over long
periods of time, can be understood as subjective to the participating parties, and are characterized
by trust and belief in good faith between parties.

PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 34
Table 2
Comparison of Transactional and Relational Psychological Contracts
Transactional psychological
contracts
Relational psychological
contracts
Time frame Short-term, time bounded
promises
Long-term, open-ended
promises
Degree of specificity Highly specified Loosely specified, amorphous
Resources exchanged Tangible, having a monetary
value
Intangible, likely to be socio-
emotional
Explicitness of promises Explicit Implicit
Negotiation Likely to be explicit and
require formal agreement by
both parties
Implicit and unlikely to
involve actual agreement by
both parties
Examples Pay in exchange for number of
hours worked
Job security in exchange for
employee loyalty.
Note: The comparisons and their descriptions are provided by Conway and Briner.
Rousseau stated the violation of a psychological contract has deleterious effects on the
relationship between an individual and an organization. Psychological contracts are similar to
equity-based expectations because the expectations are derived from social cues and one’s
internal standards of fairness. The difference between inequity and contract violation is that
inequity can be remedied whereas a contract violation, which results in mistrust, cannot so easily
be remedied. Violating a psychological contract means that an organization failed to respond to
an employee’s contribution in ways the individual believed the organization should have
responded. This results in damage to trust, which is at the heart of a psychological contract,
between the individual and the organization. Damaged relationships due to a breech in trust are
not easy to restore. The violation leads the individual to feel frustration, disappointment, anger,
betrayal and psychological distress. The intensity of the individual’s response to the violation is
in relation to the severity of the unmet expectation as well as the belief about behaviors
associated with trust relationships. In summary, psychological contracts reveal the foundation of
trust built into relationships and contracts between individuals and organizations.
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 35
Psychological contracts model of contingent work. Whereas Rousseau (1989) focuses
on psychological contracts in terms of the reciprocal obligation between a traditional employee
and his or her organization, Parks, Kidder, and Gallagher (1998) present the dimensions of
psychological contracts specifically in the context of the realities faced by contingent workers.
The authors define psychological contract as occurring
between an employer and employee in terms of the idiosyncratic set of reciprocal
expectations held by employees concerning their obligation (i.e., what they will do for the
employer) and their entitlements (i.e., what they will expect to receive in return). (Parks
et al., 1998, p. 698).
Parks et al. (1998) examine how the characteristics of psychological contracts are
perceived or experienced because a psychological contract is inherently perceptual. Their focus
is not on absolute measures that can be quantified but rather the focus is on how the
characteristics of the psychological contract are perceived or experienced by the contingent
worker. Research by Rousseau (1989) identified five characteristics of psychological contracts:
stability, scope, tangibility, focus and time frame. Parks et al. (1998) expand this list to include
particularlism, which they drew from other research. Particularism represents the nature of the
skills or talents an employee possesses. To these six characteristics, the authors add multiple
agency and volition. For this literature review, stability, focus, time frame, multiple agency, and
volition will be discussed as they were most closely aligned with my research question.
The stability of a psychological contract refers to how malleable or concrete the terms of
the psychological contract are to the employee. More specifically, stability is the degree to which
the terms of the psychological contract can evolve and change without renegotiation of the
contract’s terms. The more renegotiation that occurs, the more unstable the psychological
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 36
contract becomes. Depending on the type of contingent employment, some terms can be more
malleable than other types. Parks et al. (1998) state that more dynamic or emergent contracts
require the development of trust as the employee “proves” him or herself to the organization.
Economic resources are an important part of any work contract. Focus relates to the
emphasis a contingent employee places on the economic resources versus the socio-emotional
resources in the psychological contract. Economic resources include pay and benefits. Socio-
emotional resources include opportunities for personal or professional growth, loyalty to the
organization, and identification as member of the organization. The authors state that contingent
workers are less likely to receive socio-emotional rewards than permanent employees due to
their temporary position within the organization. They add that, therefore, a focus on the
economic aspects of a job will cause the contingent employee to feel less ownership over the
position and reduced commitment to the organization. A focus on socio-emotional resources will
lead to greater ownership of one’s work and commitment to the organization.
The time frame of a work contract is an essential component of the employment contract.
Parks et al. (1998) state that there are two important components of the time frame: the duration,
meaning the extent to which the employee perceives the relationship to be short- or long-term,
and precision, meaning the extent to which the employee perceives the relationship to be finite or
indefinite. Contingent workers who work for short periods of time may not feel the need to
socialize and build relationships with other coworkers since they may soon leave the
organization. The contingent worker’s personal reluctance prevents the employee from acquiring
the socio-emotional resources that would benefit him or her.
Multiple agency is included by Parks et al. (1998) to understand the possibility that
contingent workers may have multiple psychological contracts with several employers. Multiple
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 37
agency is an important dimension of psychological contracts that can help explain employee
behavior and attitudes. Multiple agency can result in either positive or negative relationships
between the contingent employee and the employer. Employees in multiple agency relationships
can experience high satisfaction and greater commitment. However, employees could experience
role conflict or role overload that can lead to dissatisfaction, a lack in confidence, and lowered
morale. Employment that does not focus on socio-emotional resources will result in the multiple
agency employment relationships having more role conflict, ambiguous roles, and a greater
potential to violate the roles.
Volition is the extent to which employees perceive they have voluntarily participated in
defining the nature and terms of the psychological contract. Since all psychological contracts are
in some way voluntary, volition more specifically refers to the degree to which an employee has
choice over what is included or excluded in the nature of the employment relationship.
Individuals who believe they have chosen their employment will be more committed to the
employer as opposed to individuals who chose the employment because it was the only or the
best option at the time (but not the preferred option). An employment contract that the employee
feels has little volition will result in feelings of inequity and injustice, or what the author’s state
feels like “an unwarranted intrusion into one’s life space” (Parks et al., 1998, p. 722).
Employees’ attitudes and feelings in connection to the psychological contract are moderated by
volition. Parks et al.’s (1998) study of contingent workers shows the importance of aspects such
as stability, scope, tangibility, focus, time frame, multiple agency and volition on psychological
contracts between a contingent employee and employer.

PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 38
Conclusion
The literature on organizational culture reveals the process whereby culture is taught to a
newcomer and the complexity of cultural attributes as experienced by the contingent worker.
Also important within organizational culture is how an individual experiences the culture around
him or her and the actions, thoughts and beliefs that he or she uses to understand the
organizational environment. This includes the different level of individual schema, psychological
contracts, and signs or symbols (i.e., semiotics). Every aspect of an organizational culture can be
considered a sign that represents the organization’s culture. Conclusions can be made due to the
codes that repeatedly emerge in an organization’s culture. An individual’s own goals and
motives contribute to schema salience and are influenced by the codes experienced through the
organization schemas. During the individual’s sense-making process, the individual will make
mistakes or experience confusion in regards to that in the organization, which is not salient or
observable. Shared assumptions or common experiences between individuals will lead to the
development of subcultures in an organization.
The literature on organizational culture also reveals the importance of time and space in
an organization and its effects on perceptions of contingent workers and how contingent
employees perceive the organization. Time and space are both unobservable but are key in any
organization. Contingent employees could potentially challenge the notions of time and space
given their work contracts. Interaction rituals are key to participating in an organization’s culture
yet contingent employees are limited in the frequency that they can participate in interaction
rituals. Given the limited time spent in organizations, contingent employees who focus on socio-
emotional resources will have greater ownership of their work and commitment to the
organization as opposed to the contingent employees who focus on economic resources. But,
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 39
contingent employees may not attempt to focus on socio-emotional resources since they are not
present often or work in multiple institutions. Contingent employees who work at multiple
institutions may experience role conflict or role overload and will not be able to develop
substantial socio-emotional resources.
The literature on organizational culture provides an understanding of the environment
experienced by an adjunct instructor in his/her department and university. However,
organizational culture literature does not explore what contributes to a contingent employee’s or
adjunct instructor’s perception of belonging or exclusion. Therefore, I needed to explore more
literature to understand how an adjunct instructor went beyond simply existing in an
organizational environment to perceiving a sense of belonging or exclusion. The next section
includes a review of literature that explores the concept of belonging, specifically in
organizational environments.
Sense of Belonging
Establishing and fostering relatedness to others is a deeply held and pervasive human
concern. Maslow (1954) describes belonging as a basic human need and Baumeister and Leary
(1995) state belonging is a fundamental human emotion. McClure and Brown (2008) believe it is
important to remember that any exploration into the phenomenon of belonging will reveal its
“interdependent, dynamic, and contradictory” (p. 4) components. Therefore, “the desire for
interpersonal attachment may well be one of the most far-reaching and integrative constructs
currently available to understand human nature” (Baumeister & Leary, 1995, p. 522). Yet,
belonging is experienced every day in our interactions with those with whom we work. One
particularly idealistic description of belonging is: “people of all social identity groups [have] the
opportunity to be present, to have their voices heard and appreciated, and to engage in core
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 40
activities on behalf of the collective” (Wasserman, Gallegos, & Ferdman, 2008, p. 176). A sense
of belonging may be difficult to define but it is greatly desired and valued in the workplace.
Literature on belonging approaches belonging differently in that it explains how an
individual sees his or her position or the space that he or she occupies in relation to others within
the organization. The literature also explains how the opposite of belonging, marginalization,
forms in individuals who are not accepted by individuals in an organization. Certain elements
contribute to one’s sense of belonging and are identified and described in the literature. The fit
between an individual and the organizational culture will ultimately determine how well the
individual feels a sense of belonging. I begin by presenting theoretical literature on by Shore et
al. (2011) and Barak (1999). Although Shore et al. (2011) speak of belonging as an element of
inclusion, their discussion of belonging in relation to an individual’s unique characteristics
helped me to understand the contributing factors to an individual’s sense of belonging. They also
discuss the characteristics of an organization that contribute to one’s sense of exclusion. Barak
(1999) also discusses inclusion but as applied to the conditions faced by ethnic and racial
minorities. However, Barak’s (1999) model was useful in understanding the extent of inclusion
of exclusion of adjunct faculty who are often cited as being treated as a minority group in higher
education. I then present empirical literature on belonging by Hagerty et al. (1996), McClure and
Brown (2008) and Kezar (2013). Hagerty et al.’s (1996) described the personal characteristics
that have an effect on one’s sense of belonging. McClure and Brown’s (2008) phenomenological
research study revealed how the participants in the study constructed an understanding of what
contributed to their sense of belonging in their workplaces. Kezar’s (2013) study of full-and part-
time non-tenure-track faculty revealed the individual conditions and organizational conditions
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 41
that resulted in what they believed to be supportive work environments in their academic
departments.
Theories on Belonging
Shore et al. (2011) present belonging as a component within their definition and
framework for inclusion in the workplace. The authors developed a definition of inclusion within
a work group that centers on an individual’s balanced level of belongingness and uniqueness.
Built into the framework are the authors’ assumptions that individuals want to feel a sense of
belonging within their organizations and feel valued for their unique contributions to the
organization. Uniqueness, meaning valuing an individual’s unique qualities that for his or her
identity, is included because the authors believe that all individuals wish to be viewed as
somewhat unique. Stigmas develop when an individual’s uniqueness is not valued. He or she
chooses to hide the undervalued identities or attributes from the work group to avoid rejection by
the work group. Therefore, the authors believe that uniqueness is an important component of
inclusion because if belonging is only focused on then it will prevent individuals from being
valued for their unique characteristics and will result in individuals suppressing their
backgrounds and opinions.
An individual’s need for belongingness and uniqueness can vary depending on the
context of an organization’s environment but the individual will ultimately seek to balance the
two and find the correct level to experience inclusion. The authors define inclusion as: “…the
degree to which an employee perceives that he or she is an esteemed member of the work group
through experiencing treatment that satisfies his or her needs for belongingness and uniqueness”
(2011, p. 1265). A climate of inclusion is where policies, procedures, and actions of an
organization consistently treat all employees fairly. Feelings of inclusion are realized when
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 42
belongingness and uniqueness are balanced and work together. Individuals will choose to either
focus on uniqueness or belongingness during certain situations. Individuals feel accepted when a
work group values the unique characteristics (i.e., perspectives, knowledge and experiences) of
an individual and treat the individual as an accepted member of the group.
Shore et al.’s (2011) 2 x 2 framework contains four cells that depict a range in low value
of uniqueness and belongingness to high value of uniqueness and belongingness. The inclusion
cell has high belongingness and high uniqueness because an individual is accepted in a group
and encouraged to retain his or her own unique characteristics. The assimilation cell has high
belongingness and low value in uniqueness because an individual is welcomed in a group
because the individual conforms to the dominant culture and minimize his or her uniqueness.
The differentiation cell has low belongingness and high value for uniqueness because the
individual is not necessarily welcomed into the group but valued for his or her individual
characteristics. The exclusion cell has low belongingness and low uniqueness because an
individual is not welcomed into a group and not considered to have enough value to contribute to
the organization. A lack or absence of belongingness can lead to negative cognitive, emotional,
behavioral and health outcomes. In summary, the authors’ inclusion framework proposes that
individuals want to feel valued for their unique attributes and want to feel belongingness in the
group.

PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 43
Figure 1. Shore et al.’s Inclusion Framework. From “Inclusion and Diversity in Work Groups: A
Review and Model for Future Research,” by L. M. Shore et al., 2011, Journal of Management,
37(4), p. 1266.

Shore et al.’s (2011) framework does not address Parks et al.’s (1998) multiple agency,
the complexity of belongingness that workers face who may have multiple social identities
within the multiple organizations they work. It is unclear how an employee who may work for
several organizations will feel belongingness and value for individual uniqueness across
institutions. Also, Shore et al. (2011) state that they assume within their framework that the
individual desires to feel a sense of belonging but the authors do not address employees who may
not desire or require to feel a sense of belonging.
Barak’s (1999) model presents a continuum of inclusion and exclusion as applied to the
conditions faced by ethnic and racial minorities, the continuum can be used to understand the
extent of inclusion or exclusion of adjunct faculty who are often cited as a minority group within
higher education. Barak (1999) chose to explore how inclusion occurs among individuals in a
workplace because of what she believes is the inability of institutions to foster cooperation
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 44
among a growingly diverse workforce. Based on her research, the two most important workplace
operations are participation in information networks and inclusion in important decision making
processes. Exclusion from these two operations prevents the development of an organizational
culture that fosters respect for all members. The author explains inclusion and exclusion as
experienced on an individual level, which help to further explain how individuals within an
organizational culture perceive these feelings.
Barak (1999) clarifies that inclusion is dissimilar to organizational involvement because
inclusion and exclusion are indicators of employees’ perceptions of their own position in relation
to the “mainstream” of the organization. Both formal and informal processes within the
organization’s environment, such as meetings, after-work dinners, or workplace gossip,
contribute to the development of the individual’s perception. Barak (1999) connects this to
Mead’s (1982) symbolic interaction theory, in which Barak describes: “…seeing oneself from
the viewpoint of others in determining how one stands in the world” (1999, p. 52). This mental
dialogue within the individual is a continuous process used to understand one’s place in a work
group. Barak (1999) states: “Perceptions of inclusion or exclusion, therefore, are a form of an on-
going evaluation. These evaluations are the chief methodology that individuals utilize to assess
their positions within groups and organizations” (p. 53). This is similar to Harris’s (1994)
explanation that individuals choose to behave in the social settings of organizations in response
to mental dialogues between themselves and other individuals or groups.
Barak (1999) states it is important to understand an individual’s inclusion and exclusion
within an organization in order to explain what prevents an individual from contributing to and
benefitting from being involved in an organization. The extent to which an individual feels
welcomed is determined by the congruence between an individual’s characteristics and the
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 45
organizational culture. An individual’s behavior is affected by the individual’s perception of the
organizational culture and attributing meaning to management’s actions. An individual who feels
supported by an organization will develop a sense of belonging, which Barak compares to being
sanctioned by the organization. An individual will experience exclusion in an organization if a
particular group views the individual as different. These perceptions create in-group/out-group
variability and will result in opportunities not being offered to the individual. Therefore, varying
degrees of exclusion are experienced depending on an individual’s characteristics and group
affiliation. If an individual experiences continuous exclusion, it will result in the individual
having negative emotions and feelings such as low performance, burnout, anger, and even
violence towards the organization or upon oneself.
Barak’s (1999) model as shown in Figure 2 presents how an individual’s personal
characteristics (values and norms) and the organization’s environment (policies and procedures)
have a reciprocal influence and will affect the individual’s sense of inclusion or exclusion. A
congruence between what the individual brings with respect to his or her sense of being to the
work environment and the organizational culture of the work environment will influence the
extent to which the individual feels welcomed or valued within the organizational system. The
author states that an organization is both a technical and social system and employees will
navigate the landscape based on their interpretation of the system.

PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 46

Figure 2. Barak’s model of organizational inclusion. From “Beyond Affirmative Action: Toward
a Model of Diversity and Organizational Inclusion,” by M. E. M. Barak, 1999, Administration in
Social Work, 23(3), p. 59.

Barak’s (1999) model presents the complex and interacting layers of individual, group,
and organizational levels that affect an individual’s feelings of inclusion and exclusion.
Individuals who are within the mainstream or represent the norms of the organization will have
greater inclusion. Thus, organizational culture and individual characteristics are reciprocal and
their interaction has a direct impact on the inclusion and exclusion of employees.
Empirical Studies on Belonging
In addition to the two theories on organizational inclusion, there are a small number of
empirical studies on belonging in the workplace. In the following section, I discuss four studies
that investigate the organizational conditions and the individual’s personal characteristics that are
needed for an individual to experience belonging. I offer these three studies because they helped
me to understand how part-time faculty developed a sense of belonging in their departments and
universities. First, Hagerty, Williams, Coyne, and Early’s (1996) study identified the
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 47
characteristics of an individual that contributed to belonging in general (not specifically in the
workplace) but found that the antecedents to belonging were more important than an individual’s
characteristics. Next, McClure and Brown’s (2008) phenomenological study explored how
individuals experienced belonging in their workplaces. Finally, I present Kezar’s (2013) findings
of the individual and organizational conditions that non-tenure-track faculty members believed
created a supportive work environment.
Hagerty et al. (1996) studied the relationships between sense of belonging and personal
characteristics and several indicators of social and psychological functioning in men and women.
The nature and quality of an individual’s interpersonal relations might influence behavior and
benefit or degrade health. The study was guided by two research questions: (1) “What are the
relationships and differences between men and women’s personal characteristics and sense of
belonging?, (2) What are the relationships and differences between men and women’s
psychological and social functioning and sense of belonging?” (1996, p. 236) For the purpose of
the study, sense of belonging was defined as “the experience of personal involvement in a system
or environment so that persons feel themselves to be an integral part of that system or
environment” (1996, p. 236). Three precursors of sense of belonging were: (1) the energy one
has for involvement, (2) the desire for meaningful involvement, and (3) the potential for
complementary characteristics. Sense of belonging had two main attributes: (1) the experience of
being valued or needed by other people, groups, or within an environment (or valued
involvement), and (2) the experience of fitting in with other people, groups, or within an
environment through shared characteristics (or fit). When belonging occurred, it resulted in the
individual experiencing: 1) involvement, 2) a sense of meaningfulness in involvement, and 3)
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 48
positive emotional and behavioral responses toward the work environment. Therefore, belonging
was feeling valued and believing that one fit in the environment.
The authors used two subscales to measure sense of belonging in the study: the SOBI-P
scale (sense of belonging instrument for psychological experience–fit and value involvement)
and the SOBI-A scale (sense of belonging instrument for antecedents). Other instruments were
also used to measure indicators of social and psychological functioning. Three hundred and
seventy-nine community college students were selected from a single community college. The
authors did not state how the students were selected for the study. The community college was
selected because of its heterogeneous student body population but Hagerty et al. (1996) did not
explain why this factor was important to the site selection. The breakdown of the subjects
participating was: 64% Caucasian, 23% African American, 4% Native American, 4% other, 3%
Asian, and 2% Hispanic. The ages of the subjects ranged from 18 to 72 years with a mean age of
26 years. Information used for the study addressed sense of belonging as well as social support,
conflict, involvement in community activities, attendance at religious services, loneliness,
depression, history of psychiatric treatment, suicidal behaviors, anxiety, and general information.
Findings of the study revealed that age, gender, marital status, education, and ethnicity
had no direct relationship to sense of belonging. Income for women, psychological functioning
for women, religious preferences for men, and social functions for both genders presented
significant differences. Hagerty et al. (1996) stated that even though there was no significant
relationship for the five variables, it was unclear how these variables affected sense of belonging
within relationships. However, a connection between sense of belonging and social support was
found: both genders felt a higher sense of belonging and its antecedents as associated with more
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 49
perceived support actions. Negative social support and conflict negatively affected one’s sense of
belonging, but this was stronger for women than for men.
McClure and Brown’s (2008) phenomenological study explored the social functions
within an organization that supported an individual’s sense of belonging. The authors chose
phenomenological research because of the importance of words and their meanings within
relationships. The authors believed that our words took on a much greater meaning than we
actually attributed to them and meanings behind our words could reveal a great amount of
information about how we understood our work lives.
The research question of the study was: “What is the experience of belonging at work?”
(McClure & Brown, 2008, p. 3). The authors’ research question informed the choice of using a
phenomenological research methodology since the authors stated there was no single way of
experiencing belonging at work and could not generalize themes of belonging by studying a
diverse group of people. The authors were aware that many variables, such as age, gender, or
race, might have affected one’s sense of belonging and, therefore, their research could not be
generalizable but revealed the complexity inherent in defining an individual’s sense of
belonging.
Interviewees were given a consent form that followed the authors’ institution’s review
board guidelines. Twelve participants were chosen and pseudonyms were used to ensure
confidentiality. The authors sought participants with diverse experiences and participants ranged
from 20 to 80 years of ages from various career fields. Convenience sampling was employed by
recruiting friends, family and acquaintances. Interviews ranged in length from 1 hour to 1 hour
and 30 minutes and primarily conducted in person with two interviews being conducted by
phone. McClure and Brown (2008) used some clarifying questions but essentially asked: “What
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 50
was belonging at work like? ‘Do you remember a particular time when you experienced it” (p.
9).
The data collection process the authors followed was: 1) collected verbal data, 2) read the
data, 3) separated data into groups, 4) organized and expressed the data from a disciplinary
perspective, and 4) summarized the data. The authors performed data analysis by first reading all
of the transcripts to develop an overall comprehension. The authors noted all phrases relating to
the sense of meaning. The transcripts were then read a second time to ensure understanding and
to break the text into like groupings or themes. The authors then reread the text a third time to
finalize their themes to help explain the participants’ experiences. The authors identified six
constituents, or themes identified to explain the structure of the participants’ experiences, to
describe belonging at work. The components of each constituent are described in more detail in
the following table.
Table 3
McClure and Brown’s Constituents of Belonging at Work
Constituent Description
Being invited and learning to be
a part of a work place
Emergent sense of understanding oneself within work, the
need to be familiar with the language and terms of the work
itself, and the language and customs of the group.
Connecting with colleagues and
wanting to be included
Being with people, communicating, and enjoying each other
while working (i.e., values and rituals).
Doing work and being
recognized
Process improvements, recognition as a person and
contributor, and valued performance.
Natural selection at work–
competing and being excluded
Not belonging used as a motivator and socialization tool for
personal growth. The imposition of a false belonging and the
discouragement of belonging.
Being needed and finding myself
deeply involved in my profession
Acceptance of self and others, coming to terms with oneself
in one’s profession.
Reflecting on time, work, and
people passing
Appreciation of feeling a sense of belonging although
realization that it is not essential and can be transient.

PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 51
The constituents focused on connection to the workplace and coworkers, being valued,
accepting one’s position in his/her profession, and understanding time. Participants explained
that by only feeling excluded could they then understand the value and their desire for inclusion.
Based on the findings of the research, the authors stated that people needed help learning how to
be present at work and learn and develop different ways of developing interpersonal
relationships with other employees.
Kezar’s (2013) study specifically investigated the elements that non-tenure-track faculty
believed contributed to a supportive environment in their departments and institutions. It is
important to note that a difference exists between support and belonging. Hagerty et al. (1996, p.
237) states, “The conceptualization of sense of belonging is more specific and basic than the
more familiar construction of global social support.” Kezar (2013) included both full- and part-
time non-tenure track faculty, this study provided insight into how a supportive environment
might contribute to an adjunct’s sense of belonging. Kezar’s (2013) research question was: “How
do Non-Tenure-Track Faculty (NTTF) construct an understanding of support within their
departments?” (Kezar, 2013, p. 4). Kezar believed support to be the most important element
within the workplace to focus on because many policies created for NTTF attempted to create or
increase support in the workplace. She defined support as having these qualities: “helping with
work, sustaining professionally, and overcoming barriers” (Kezar, 2008, p. 4). Support was also
an important factor because research has proved that the experiences of NTTF were unlike those
of faculty with tenure and are non-normative.
Kezar (2013) examined academic departments that had recently made changes in policies
and practices to support NTTF in comparison to those that had not made any changes in order to
see the impact on faculty performance and perspective. She used a multi-case study in order to
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 52
better understand the environment in which each NTTF member worked and their beliefs about
the departments. Kezar (2013) stated that typical case sampling was utilized because she had
found that the findings of studies of NTTF were context based and it would result in better
recommendations when a particular institutional type was chosen. Her rationale was that 4-year
institutions had less time to respond to the increase in NTTF unlike community colleges, which
experienced the trend earlier and had been the focus of many studies. She stated that she was
achieving both breadth and depth by focusing on Master 1 level 4-year institutions.
Kezar (2013) also investigated the departments beforehand to ensure that they did not
have particularly exemplary policies towards NTTF but were in the process of moving towards
more supportive policies. Fourteen were unsupportive and 11 supportive. By carefully selecting
her sites, she ensured that the findings could be generalizable given that many institutions across
the country were in the process of developing policies to be more supportive of NTTF. Although,
the author did not reveal any contextual features of the institutions to protect the participants, she
did reveal that all the policy changes towards the NTTF were due to union initiated action on the
campuses. Additionally, the 25 departments she chose represented a range of professional fields:
science, social science, humanities, and professional fields. The 25 departments across the three
institutions were matched so that a history department with unsupportive practices would be
matched with a history department with supportive practices. In order to select matching
departments, Kezar (2013) had an informant at each institution create a list of supportive and
unsupportive departments.
The author conducted one-on-one interviews with a total of 107 NTTF with 58 being
part-time and 49 being full-time. The NTTF members were randomly chosen from departmental
rosters and Kezar (2013) emailed them to ask for their participation in the study. When she faced
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 53
difficulty with obtaining participants, she then switched to snowball sampling. Individuals within
departments who had agreed to participate recommended other NTTF. She utilized the
typologies to describe adjunct faculty created by Gappa and Leslie (1993): career-enders,
specialists, aspiring academics, and freelancers. However, Kezar (2013) could not sample with
these typologies before the start of the interviews because she stated that it was difficult to
identify each participant prior to the interview but each person was identified during and
categorized after the interview. Therefore, the part-timers she interviewed were four career-
enders; 21 specialists, experts, and professionals; 19 aspiring academics; and 14 freelancers. All
of the full-timers interviewed had teaching roles with more than half seeking a tenure position
and the other half satisfied without tenure.
Interviews ranged from 60 to 90 minutes. Interviews were the primary source of data
collection. Document analysis was used to study the institution’s website and key documents that
included strategic plans, faculty handbooks, union contracts, and departmental websites and
materials. The author also observed faculty offices and space and interactions with students
during office hours. The interviews focused on the following areas: (1) general background, (2)
the interviewee’s perspective and how supportive or unsupportive the interviewee believed the
institution and department to be, (3) the impact of the policies on their performance, (4) how
their teaching practices related to the departmental policies, (5) interactions with others in the
department, and (6) and open-ended period for interviewees to add any further comments. Open
coding was utilized to create categories based on the transcripts and all the data was further
coded using a software called N6. Kezar (2013) stated that careful attention to sample selection
and the large number of people interviewed helped to build trustworthiness of her findings. The
author also had a subset of 23 NTTF review the findings. A limitation of the study was that all
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 54
three institutions were in the same state so the findings could be more applicable to the working
conditions of that state than other states.
The findings of the study revealed that two overarching categories contributed to a NTTF
member’s construction of a supportive environment that was both dynamic and changed with
time: individual conditions and organizational conditions. Individual conditions included:
comparison groups, life phase, credentials, external employment, and career path. Comparison
groups were groups of individuals or a collection of policies that the NTTF members felt were
supportive or unsupportive. For example, the NTTF members mostly compared their conditions
to the conditions of the tenure track faculty. Another example was how NTTF compared the
treatment they received within their department to the conditions faced by NTTF in other
departments. The life phase and priorities of the particular life phase influenced how the NTTF
perceived support. However, the faculty members’ views of support changed with their evolving
life phases, for example, new faculty required a much greater level of support than those who
had been teaching for years. Credentials were a contributing factor because faculty working on
or who already possessed doctoral degrees had different expectations than those who did not
have doctoral degrees. NTTF with master’s degrees required less support than those with
advanced degrees. External employment referred to the NTTF who carried over prestige from
their work in their professional careers and were given perks such as higher pay, more support
from department chairs, access to resources and materials, etc. The NTTF who did not receive
acknowledgement for their accomplishments in external employment felt undervalued and
unsupported. However, NTTF recognized that their chosen career paths did contribute to how
they viewed support within the disciplines their departments represented.
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 55
NTTF members tended to focus more on departmental characteristics that contributed to
a supportive or unsupportive environment as opposed to institutional level characteristics.
Organizational conditions include: departmental size, departmental history, relationships,
department chair, and policy. NTTF believed departments with 100 or more members were too
large to easily connect with other faculty. Smaller departments allowed for more opportunities to
create relationships and supportive networks. Departmental history of treatment towards NTTF
members and how long NTTF had been present in the department also played an important role.
Many of the NTTF who had worked in their departments for over 20 years felt a shift in respect
to how they were treated and negligent treatment increasing in recent years. NTTF were very
grateful of the relationships with tenure-track faculty members or their department chairs. These
relationships were so valued that they outweighed the fact that the NTTF members might have
worked in an overall unsupportive environment. Department chairs who made an effort to
support NTTF had a significant impact on NTTF members’ perceptions of support.
Unfortunately, many of the institutions did not have written and documented policies pertaining
to NTTF so department chairs could create them as they saw fit which might or might not have
created a supportive environment.
Conclusion
The literature on belonging reveals the personal and organizational factors that contribute
to the development of a sense of belonging. Although belonging was considered a component of
inclusion in both Shore et al. (2011) and Barak’s (1999) literature, the authors presented greater
insight into belonging and the external and internal factors that contribute to an individual’s
belonging. Shore et al. (2011) presented a definition of inclusion that balances uniqueness and
belongingness. Barak (1999) believes that belonging develops when an individual has access to
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 56
information networks and is included in important decision-making processes. Individuals
understand their level of belonging through a continuous process of evaluation that occurs as a
mental dialogue of their position in the organization. Like Shore et al.’s (2011) definition, the
individual’s personal characteristics (values and norms) and the organization’s policies and
procedures have a reciprocal influence that affects the individual’s evaluation.
Hagerty et al. (1996) found that social support and its antecedents, such as energy and
desire for involvement, contribute to a sense of belonging. Hagerty et al.’s (1996) research aligns
with Barak (1999) and Shore et al.’s (2011) beliefs that an individual’s unique characteristics
should be supported in an organizational environment in order for the individual to develop a
sense of belonging. Hagerty et al.’s (1996) research also aligns with that of Harris (1994) who
focused on self, person in organization, and organization schemas that contribute to an
individual’s sensemaking. However, it is important to note that Hagerty’s et al.’s (1996) research
does not focus on belonging within a workplace environment like Barak (1999) and Shore et al.’s
(2011) but sense of belonging in general. Although there are some issues with how Hagerty et al.
(1996) chose the participants, the authors’ research is important and relevant to this literature
because of its validity of the concept of sense of belonging and the psychological and social
functioning antecedents that are key to influencing an individual’s initial development of a sense
of belonging.
McClure and Brown’s (2008) qualitative study provides a broad understanding of
belonging at work. Their insight that exclusion needs to be experienced for the employee to
understand belonging is helpful in understanding how adjunct may have experienced both
exclusion and belonging in their universities. McClure and Brown’s (2008) constituents of
belonging at work relate to the individual and organizational characteristics found in Kezar’s
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 57
(2013) study. Kezar (2013) studied NTTF who worked in supportive and unsupportive higher
education departments. She found two overarching categories contributed to support which were
individual conditions and organizational conditions. Ultimately, the findings of this study show
the importance of not focusing solely on typologies to describe the adjunct faculty’s experience
but to understand that they are a diverse group who construct support in complex ways.
However, many of the participants believed that their experiences could be generalized across
NTTF. The study presents usually ignored but important factors of the NTTF’s experience,
which are newness to teaching, comparison groups, life phase, credentials, career path, and
others. These theories and studies highlight the importance of understanding how a sense of
belonging can be developed by both the individual’s understanding of self and the organization.
Conceptual Framework
Maxwell (2013) explains a conceptual framework is “a conception or model of what is
out there that you plan to study, and of what is going on with these things and why–a tentative
theory of the phenomena that you are investigating” (p. 39). My conceptual framework presents
my theory for how part-time faculty members perceive themselves as belonging in or being
excluded from their academic cultures. Maxwell (2013) recommends that the most “productive”
(p. 40) conceptual frameworks are those that bring together or connect ideas from different
bodies of literature and research that no one has connected before. Therefore, my conceptual
framework was initially constructed based on my literature review and was revised due to the
findings that emerged from my study.
The conceptual framework I present below in Figure 3 was revised due to the findings
that emerged from my data analysis of my study. Originally, I believed that a part-time faculty
member’s sense of belonging was a stagnant process that solely occurred in the part-time faculty
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 58
member’s understanding of self or self-schema based on personal characteristics and how he or
she cognitively understood the organization through its culture or organization-schema based on
organizational characteristics. Two major revisions were applied to this framework. First, the
impacting personal characteristics and organization characteristics have changed. Initially, I
believed a self-schema was informed by personal characteristics that included life phase,
credentials, external employment and career path (Kezar, 2013). The self-schema was revised to
include academic and professional credentials, external employment and life phase contribute to
one’s desire and energy for involvement. Within the organization schema, I had argued artifacts,
espoused beliefs and values, and basic underlying assumptions (Schein, 2010) influence the
climate, leadership, policies and practices that the part-time faculty member experiences and
contributes to his or her sense of belonging. The revised organization schema presents basic
underlying assumptions, reciprocity and complete valuing that influence the climate, leadership,
policies and practices that the part-time faculty member experiences and contributes to his or her
sense of belonging. The second major revision relates to the motionless presentation of the
conceptual framework. I initially believed that once the part-time faculty member understood
these schemas through mental dialogues then a sense of belonging was either created or not
created. This has also changed to show that having a sense of belonging is a constant process of
negotiation of understanding that part-time faculty members move through. Part-time faculty
members reported experiencing many changes from semester to semester with little explanations
of these changes, therefore, the constant changes required them to enact a sense making process
of their position as part-time faculty members in their departments and institutions. First, I
explain each piece of my revised conceptual framework. Second, I will discuss the process and
development of a sense of belonging presented in the conceptual framework.
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 59

Figure 3. Conceptual Framework.
Self- and Organization Schemas
In the development of a sense of belonging, the part-time faculty member will initially
construct a self- and organization schema (Harris, 1994) in order to understand her place or how
she fits in the academic culture and how she understands the academic culture. Harris (1994)
stated that the schemas we choose will facilitate making sense of and the interpretation of events
and information. I argue that a self-schema and organization schema are at the beginning of the
process of the part-time faculty member’s realization of a sense of belonging. A part-time faculty
member has an ongoing mental dialogue (Barak, 1999; Harris, 1994) in which the adjunct
constructs an understanding of herself in relation to the organization and her sense of belonging.
The two schemas overlap because the part-time faculty member uses both schemas
simultaneously to understand either a sense of belonging or exclusion. In this section, I define
each of the contributing pieces of the self- and organization schemas.
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 60
Self-Schema. The self-schema shown in Figure 3, presents how the part-time faculty
member understands aspects of herself in relation to the organization, such as roles, behaviors,
and values, which influence her reactions to the organization. Although the self-schema is
constructed inwardly, Harris (1994) notes that how an individual defines herself is greatly
impacted by the reactions of others; therefore, the importance of the overlapping organizational
schema. For part-time faculty members, certain personal characteristics that were repeatedly
discussed in their interviews were particularly salient and impactful on their self-schemas. These
personal characteristics or what Kezar (2013, p. 15) refers to as “individual life conditions” were
academic and professional credentials, external employment and life phase. Academic
credentials refer to the amount of education the part-time faculty member received. Professional
credentials refer to the rank and achievements the part-time faculty member attained in her
professional career outside of teaching. External employment impacted the part-time faculty
member’s sense of time and involvement to the part-time faculty position. For example, several
of the part-time faculty members worked across several careers or taught in multiple institutions.
In discussing life phase, part-time faculty typically equated this to three factors: how long they
had worked as part-time faculty members, current age, and their priorities, such as family, work
or retirement, at their current life stage. It is important to note that these personal characteristics
obviously change with time and one’s self-schema is constantly changing.
These personal characteristics, academic and professional credentials, external
employment and life phase, influence two overlapping components: the energy one has for
involvement and the desire for meaningful involvement (Hagerty, 1996). The two components,
energy one has for involvement and desire one has for involvement, fill a gap in the literature
concerning part-time faculty members who do not desire to feel a sense of belonging or exert
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 61
energy towards involvement in an academic culture for the development of a sense of belonging.
Further, based on analysis of the interview data, part-time faculty can have contrasting levels of
these two components, such as a part-time faculty member may have a high desire for
meaningful involvement but puts forth low energy towards a sense of belonging and vice versa.

Figure 4. Self-schema.
Organization Schema. The organization schema overlaps the self-schema and represents
the knowledge the part-time faculty member has of the academic culture within the higher
education institution. An individual develops an organization schema through the mental
dialogues and the contextually-relevant dialogues she has with individuals or groups in the
organization. The organization schema contains the leadership, climate, practices and policies
that the part-time faculty member encounters. The part-time faculty member understands these
characteristics of the academic culture through basic underlying assumptions, reciprocity, and
complete valuing.

PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 62

Figure 5. Organization schema.
Schein (2010) found basic underlying assumptions to be the most difficult to observe
because they are primarily invisible in an organizational culture. These assumptions are so
ingrained in a culture that they may not even be verbally communicated to a newcomer (Schein,
2010), rather the newcomer most likely will come to understand them over time through
individual sense-making by applying her own knowledge and values. Semiotics, studying
communication in an effort to understand signification, is one way to identify basic underlying
assumptions. It is important to note information being processed by the schema may not be
correct but rather prove to be deceiving. Harris (1994) stated that an individual’s schemas may
actually blind her from understanding the reality of an organizational culture.
Reciprocity relates to the part-time faculty member’s belief that the contribution she has
made for the department and university should result in some form of recompense in return or
reciprocal obligation. That which is understood as promised to the part-time faculty member and
what is actually received impacts the part-time faculty member’s trust in and commitment to the
department or university. Also, Conway and Briner (2005) noted the difference between
transactional and relational psychological contracts. Relational psychological contracts or those
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 63
that focused on meeting the part-time faculty member’s socio-emotional needs were perceived as
more important and valued than the transactional psychological contracts that only focused on
pay.
Complete valuing was a concept that emerged from the interviews with the part-time
faculty. It is similar to the concept of uniqueness discussed by Shore et al. (2011). Shore et al.
found that individuals perceive greater belonging in an organizational culture when their unique
qualities and contributions were valued. The part-time faculty felt a sense of belonging when the
part-time faculty were encouraged to contribute their knowledge and skills to achieving the goals
of the department.
Once the part-time faculty member constructed her self- and organization schemas, she
utilized the schemas to enact lone sense making, which will lead to either accommodation or
renegotiation of norm, rituals and practices. Lone sense making, accommodation and
renegotiation are described below.
Lone Sensemaking
Maitlis (2005, p. 21) defined sense making as a “process of social construction in which
individuals attempt to interpret and explain sets of cues from their environments.” Due to the
part-time faculty member’s lack of time spent on campus and limited interaction with other
faculty, part-time faculty members engaged in an extraordinary amount of sense making in
which they often had to understand their academic cultures on their own. Although Maitlis
(2005) argues that organizational sense making is a social process, part-time faculty members
often made sense of their academic cultures through limited interactions they had with the
colleagues in their departments.

PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 64
Accommodation or Renegotiation of Norms, Rituals and Practices
Lawrence and Corwin (2003) found that interaction rituals establish who can be a
member of the organizational culture and allow members to negotiate their membership status.
Based on the analysis of interview data, the interaction rituals and the desire and energy
dedicated to involvement led part-time faculty members to either accommodate the existing
rituals or renegotiate through changing or creating new norms, rituals or practices, which is
supported by Lawrence and Corwin’s findings. Depending on the motives of the part-time
faculty member and how the action is received by those in the department or university, the
accommodation or renegotiation of norms, rituals, and practices can lead to greater belonging in
the academic culture or exclusion from the academic culture.
Part-time Faculty’s Development of a Sense of Belonging
To understand the concept of belonging, I used Hagerty et al.’s (1996) definition of
belonging: “the experience of personal involvement in a system or environment so that persons
feel themselves to be an integral part of the system of environment” (1996, p. 236). An
individual’s personal characteristics, values and norms, and the organization’s environment,
climate, leadership, policies and procedures, have a reciprocal influence and will affect the
individual’s sense of belonging or exclusion.
Part-time faculty members develop self- and organization schemas to understand their
academic cultures. These schemas contribute to the way the individual makes sense of herself
and the way that the individual makes sense of the organization both consciously and
unconsciously. The part-time faculty member will utilize her self-schema to understand and
assess her position or relationship within the organization. Drawing on Kezar (2013), I argue that
the self-schema is composed of personal characteristics: life phase, academic and professional
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 65
credentials, and external employment. These personal characteristics influence the energy one
has for involvement and the desire for meaningful involvement, which contributes to a sense of
belonging. Hagerty et al. (1996) state energy and desire for involvement are two of three
precursors that lead to a sense of belonging.
The organization schema overlaps the self-schema and represents the cultural knowledge,
meanings and consensual sense-making that are characteristic of the organization (Harris, 1994;
Schein, 2010). The organization schema is informed by how the individual sees her personal
characteristics as fitting in with the organization’s culture (Hagerty et al., 1994). Harris (1994)
states an individual’s motives and goals are processed in self-schemas but influenced by
organization schemas. Basic underlying assumptions, reciprocity, and complete valuing
contribute to supporting or diminishing a part-time faculty member’s sense of belonging. These
three aspects contribute to the part-time faculty member’s understanding of the department and
university’s leadership, climate, practices and policies. Barak (1999) states an organization is
both a technical and social system and employees will navigate the landscape based on their
interpretation of the system.
The part-time faculty member will utilize her self- and organization schemas in order to
understand the academic culture. Due to the nature of contingent work, part-time faculty engage
in a great amount of lone sense making and have limited interactions with colleagues. Based on
the understanding that the part-time faculty member comes to during the lone sense making, she
will either engage in accommodation or renegotiation of norms, rituals, and practices within the
academic culture. This will either lead to a sense of belonging in or a sense of exclusion from the
academic culture.

PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 66
Conclusion
My conceptual framework presents how literature on organizational cultures and sense of
belonging explain what part-time faculty members perceive contributes to a sense of belonging
in their academic cultures. The literature and this framework informed my research design by
guiding the data collection and analytic process I undertook to answer my research question.

PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 67
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
This chapter will discuss the qualitative methods and data collection that I used to
conduct this study. Qualitative methods are best suited for “researchers who are interested in
understanding the meaning people have constructed” (Merriam, 2009, p. 13). The purpose of this
study was to determine how part-time faculty members perceived a sense of belonging to or
exclusion from a university department’s academic culture. Qualitative methods helped me to
identify and understand that which contributed to the perceptions of part-time faculty members’
sense of belonging or exclusion. Additionally, I examined the academic culture and its impact on
part-time faculty through the part-time faculty members’ description of the interactions, practices
and policies of the department and institution. This study provided findings to answer the
following research question: What do part-time faculty perceive contributes to their sense of
belonging to or exclusion from a university department’s academic culture?
Research Design
The purpose of qualitative research is to understand how people make meaning out of
their lives, identify the process of meaning-making, and describe how people interpret their
experiences (Merriam, 2009). A solely qualitative approach was employed to answer my
research question and to better understand how each part-time faculty member enacted meaning-
making in regards to a sense of belonging. A case study provides “in-depth description and
analysis of a bounded system” (Merriam, 2009, p. 40). A multisite case study allows the
researcher to collect and analyze data from several cases that shared a common characteristic or
condition (Merriam, 2009). Part-time faculty members were interviewed in order to understand
their perceptions of aspects in their academic cultures that contributed to a sense of belonging or
exclusion from the university’s they worked in. The units of analysis for the study were part-time
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 68
faculty members who were identified at higher education institutions in the Western United
States.
A case study was the chosen research method because of the characteristics that Merriam
(2009) describes case studies have: particularistic, descriptive, and heuristic. I focused on a
specific problem, namely how do part-time faculty perceive a sense of belonging in their
departments and universities. A case study is particularistic and allowed me to focus on a
specific group of people, part-time faculty, and the phenomena in question, sense of belonging.
In order to understand how a sense of belonging or exclusion is perceived, I offered a rich
description of the phenomena I was investigating. A case study fosters rich description because it
includes as many variables as possible and the interactions of those variables. Case studies
present “how things get to be the way they are” (Merriam, 2009, p. 44). I presented findings that
revealed new insights into environmental conditions and interactions that contribute to part-time
faculty members’ perceptions and beliefs about their belongingness or exclusion.
Sample
Since part-time faculty are composed of a very diverse group of individuals, purposeful
sampling was used to recruit participants with a range of specific categories or criteria of
experiences. Through consultation with my dissertation committee, it was determined to place a
greater focus on the maximum variation of individual part-time faculty members than on the
institutional or context characteristics. The public institution and private institutions were located
in two separate Western states. The public institution was chosen because I am residing in the
same state and the private institution was chosen because I had contacts within the department
who could help me to recruit faculty. The proximity to the public institution and contacts I had in
the private institution helped me to recruit participants. Although, I was able to interview several
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 69
participants from the public institution in person from the public institution, I gave the option to
all participants of either conducting the interview over videoconference or phone interview due
to their full schedules.
The criteria led me to select participants who had a range of backgrounds to understand
the differing experiences of part-time faculty. The various criteria contributed to the maximum
variation and diversity within the sample. The following selection of criteria were adapted from
Kezar’s (2013) study: life phase, external employment, and academic credentials. Additionally, I
included two more criteria: teaching modality (online or on campus) and disciplines. The criteria
are discussed in more detail below:
Criterion 1
Part-time faculty were selected who represented a range of years serving as instructors.
Seven of the part-time faculty taught 0 to 2 years, four of the part-time faculty taught 5 to 10
years, two of the part-time faculty taught 11 to 15 years, and one of the part-time faculty taught
16 to 20 years.
Criterion 2
Part-time faculty were selected who had a range of professional experiences. Five of the
part-time faculty solely taught and had no other employment. Five of the part-time faculty had a
position in their career field in addition to teaching. Four of the faculty held positions in their
career fields and also taught at other higher education institutions.
Criterion 3
Part-time faculty were selected who either had reached the highest educational attainment
of a Master’s or Doctorate degree. Three of the part-time faculty members had Master’s degrees
and 11 had Doctorate degrees.
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 70
Criterion 4
Part-time faculty were selected who taught on campus or online. Nine of the part-time
faculty members taught on campus. Three of the part-time faculty members taught online. Two
of the part-time faculty members taught both on campus and online.
Criterion 5
Part-time faculty members were selected who represented a range of disciplines.
Specifically, a snowball sampling method was used to recruit part-time faculty members.
At the public university, I sent emails to the department chairs or program coordinators of 45
academic programs to ask to recruit faculty. At the private university, I sent emails to chairs
within one division to recruit faculty. These different approaches were used because I did not
have any contacts at the public university but I did have contacts at the private university who
helped me recruit part-time faculty. The department chairs either contacted the faculty
themselves on my behalf or allowed me to send an email directly to their faculty. I then emailed
each of the part-time faculty contacts to explain my study.
If the part-time faculty member agreed to participate in the study, I sent him/her a
screener so I could learn if he/she met the study’s criteria. The screener was created in Google
Forms and emailed to the interested part-time faculty. A total of 21 part-time faculty completed
the screener: 12 at the public institution and nine at the private institution. After the part-time
faculty member submitted the questionnaire, I reviewed the questionnaire to determine if he or
she met the criteria and would contribute to the diversity of sample I sought. If the part-time
faculty member met the criteria, I contacted him or her through email to schedule an interview
and sent an information sheet (Appendix A) detailing the purpose of the study and requirements
of participation. Fourteen part-time faculty members were selected to participate in the study.
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 71
The other seven part-time faculty members who took the survey either had too similar of
characteristics to other faculty I had contacted or did not respond to my email to schedule an
interview. Table 4 lists the characteristics of the study participants who were chosen.
Table 4
Characteristics of Study Participants
Name University Discipline # of
Years
Teaching
Mode of
Instruction
External
Employment
Aimee Private Social
Sciences
2-4 On campus No other employment
(Retired)
Alexandra Public Professional
Field
0-2 On campus A position in career
field
Elle Public Humanities/
Arts
8-10 On campus A position in career
field and teaching at
another institution
George Public Social
Sciences
15-20 On campus No other employment
(Retired)
Kayla Public Humanities/
Arts
0-2 On campus No other employment
Laura Public Humanities/
Arts
4-6 On campus A position in career
field and teaching at
another institution
Leon Public Professional
Field
10-15 On campus
and online
A position in career
field
Madalyn Public Professional
Field
10-15 On campus A position in career
field
Melissa Private Social
Sciences
0-2 Online No other employment

Naomi Private Social
Sciences
4-6 Online No other employment
(Retired)
Rebecca Private Social
Sciences
2-4 On campus
and online
A position in career
field
Samuel Public Social 6-8 On campus A position in career
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 72
Sciences field
Sean Private Social
Sciences
0-2 Online A position in career
field and teaching at
another institution
Sofia Public Humanities/
Arts
2-4 On campus A position in career
field and teaching at
another institution

Data Collection and Instruments/Protocols
The purpose of this study was to understand how part-time faculty members perceived a
sense of belonging or exclusion within their departments and universities. Part-time faculty
members defined belonging in similar ways which contributed to their belief that academic
cultures that focused on meeting their socio-emotional needs and reciprocal relationships
contributed to a sense of belonging. Additionally, their desire and energy dedicated to
involvement in their academic cultures also was contributed to their sense of belonging. As a
qualitative researcher, I was the primary tool for data collection and analysis (Merriam, 2009).
Interviews
For this study, I interviewed 14 part-time faculty members. Interviews were chosen for
this study because this type of qualitative research method allows participants to describe,
interpret, and explain their perceptions to me as the researcher. Qualitative interviews,
specifically semi-structured open-ended interviews, were used in this study to collect descriptive
data in the participants’ own words so as to develop insights into how the participants interpreted
the occurrences and interactions in their academic cultures. The part-time faculty member was
offered the option of either meeting with me in person or through video conferencing or talk over
the phone. This option was given in order to work around the busy schedules of the part-time
faculty and also to allow them to choose a mode of interview that they felt most comfortable
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 73
with to share their opinions and emotions. Therefore, the interviews allowed me to engage in a
conversation with the participants to understand the unobservable, such as emotions, thoughts
and feelings.
For interviews to remain focused, the selected format for all interviews were semi-
structured open-ended interviews. One interview session was conducted with each person that
ranged from 45 minutes to 1 hour and 30 minutes. Data collection took place over a 6-week
period. Three interview protocols (Appendix B) were created to guide the conversations. One
interview protocol was for part-time faculty teaching at a single institution, one for part-time
faculty teaching at multiple institutions, and one for part-time faculty teaching online. I asked
questions for the part-time faculty members to describe the organizational climates they worked
in, the leadership they experienced, and the policies and practices they encountered. An inherent
assumption of qualitative interviews is that the participant’s perspective is meaningful and
understandable (Patton, 2002). These components revealed the beliefs and values and underlying
assumptions that the part-time faculty carried within themselves and contributed to their
understanding of belonging and exclusion. Their experiences, beliefs and insights helped me to
understand how they viewed themselves and the ways that they made sense of the organization
through factors such as leadership, climate, policies and practices.
I recorded interview and used a professional transcription service to transcribe the
interviews. During the interviews, I wrote observer’s comments to note words that particularly
seemed meaningful or emotions that the part-time faculty member exhibited. I made sure to note
moments during the interview that the part-time faculty members displayed emotions such as
sadness, happiness or frustration so that I could understand the points in the conversation that
caused the part-time faculty member to feel a particular emotion. Eight interviews were
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 74
conducted on the phone, three interviews were conducted in person, and three interviews were
conducted and recorded through video conferencing. For interviews conducted in person and
through video conferencing, I also noted body language cues, such as when the part-time faculty
member sat up and used hand gestures to show excitement concerning a particular topic. Since
most of the interviews were conducted as phone conversations, I was particularly cognizant of
the tone of people’s voices. Since I could not physically see the part-time faculty members who I
interviewed over the phone, I asked the following question: “how did that make you feel?” This
question helped me to understand the emotions they felt that I had difficulty sensing. Reflective
notes were written after each interview to document my thoughts and feelings.
Data Analysis
Data for this qualitative study included transcripts from interviews with part-time faculty
members as well as analytic memos. Ultimately, data analysis is the process used to make sense
of the data (Merriam, 2009). Bogdan and Biklen (2007) state that data analysis requires “working
with the data, organizing them, breaking them into manageable units, coding them, synthesizing
them, and searching for patterns” (p. 159). My conceptual model was used to guide my analysis
of the data in order to understand that which contributes to a part-time faculty member’s sense of
belonging or exclusion from his or her academic culture.
I began the process of data analysis by reviewing the literature in my literature review
again in hopes of refreshing my memory and enhancing my analysis. I made a cheat sheet of
notes about theories, ideas, and hunches I had based on the literature that I used as I began data
analysis. After each interview, the recordings were transferred from the handheld recorder onto a
secured laptop. I used a professional transcription service to transcribe the interviews. I
conducted data collection and analysis simultaneously so that the study remained focused and
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 75
did not become overwhelming as Merriam suggests (2009). While I was interviewing, I created a
system of organization for all my field note memos and interview transcripts. For each item, I
created a hard copy saved in a binder solely used for data collection and a digital copy saved in a
secured cloud-based data storage system to prevent any loss of data. The hard-copies of the data
were kept in my home and not shared with anyone outside of the dissertation committee. The
digital copies were kept in a password protected cloud-based storage system that was only shared
with my Dissertation Advisor.
During data analysis, I performed multiple phases of analysis. I followed Merriam’s
process for qualitative analysis (2009, p. 178-192): constructing categories, sorting categories
and data, naming the categories, and thinking or theorizing about the data. As I received each
transcript, I read the transcripts multiple times to have a clear understanding of the part-time
faculty member’s experiences in his or her academic culture. I made comments in the margins to
note my thoughts and feelings on the transcripts. I also listened to the recordings to make
corrections to the transcripts. I wrote reflective notes in order to identify what Merriam (2009)
states are the segments of data that I identified as potential answers or parts of answers to my
research questions. I also looked for recurring patterns in the data and noted these in the
reflective notes as well. I reviewed the purpose of the study repeatedly throughout the analysis of
data so as to ensure my questions and thoughts remained focused on finding the answers or parts
of answers to my research questions. I created an excel spreadsheet with each unit of data placed
into a theme and included original identifying codes: the respondent’s name and line numbers.
My coding process had several phases. As Miles and Huberman (1994) suggest, I started
with a list of codes derived from literature, then revised the codes as I compared codes against
actual interview data. Examples of codes from the literature included interaction rituals
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 76
(Lawrence and Corwin, 2003) and transfer of knowledge (Schein, 2010). I selected these a priori
codes from the literature review. However, these codes changed as I began open code transcripts
and moved towards constructing in vivo codes in the margins. Examples of in vivo codes that
emerged from the data were negotiation in academic culture and choice between being an
academic or professional. I chose to try as much as possible to code the interviews starting with
the part-time faculty who had taught the longest and finishing with the part-time faculty
members who had the least years of experience. I chose this method because the long-standing
part-time faculty members had longer transcripts that I wanted to undertake early in the analysis
process. Also, I believed that the long-standing part-time faculty would have more complex
stories, thoughts, and beliefs; however, this was not the case. The complexity of the data was
apparent through all the interviews.
As I continued coding and performing cross-case analysis, I continued to update the list
of codes to revise or add new codes. Initially, I had a large number of codes that were very
specific to each part-time faculty member’s experiences. As I continued analysis, I began to have
less code that became broader. I realized early in the coding process how much an effect each
part-time faculty member’s tone and emotions had on my analysis of the data. For example, the
first interview I coded was George’s interview (the longest serving part-time faculty member
who had taught for almost 20 years). George’s responses tended to be more negative, which was
reflected in the initial codes I had constructed. For example, my codes included resentment
towards institution and apathy towards academic world. My codes reflected the tone George
communicated through his stories and experiences. I quickly realized this by the time I coded the
second interview and my codes changed and were less antagonistic and become more neutral.
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 77
Therefore, in order to remain objective, I began to question and monitor how my own feelings
might be influenced by the feelings and emotions of the part-time faculty members.
I wrote analytic memos to myself on my thoughts, feelings and ideas derived from the
data. Corbin and Strauss (2008) state that analytic tools provide researchers with new ways of
seeing the research, prevent skipping over important data pieces, and prevent the researchers’
assumptions and biases from blinding them from important information. Several of Corbin and
Strauss’s (2008) analytic tools I used during analysis were questioning the data, making constant
comparisons (comparing incident with incident), and using the flip-flop technique to obtain new
perspectives of the data. For example, Peter, the longest serving part-time faculty member, had
very similar feelings about his role as a faculty member as that of Samuel, a young faculty
member. By comparing their experiences, I began to see some commonalities that I had not
expected to see because of their age gap and they initially appeared as having very different
experiences. I began to see that regardless of their age differences and different reasons for being
a part-time professor, they still felt similarly about their positions in their higher education
institutions. Using the analytic tools helped me to step away from the data, spend more time with
the data, and view them in new ways. I also had discussions with my Dissertation Adviser who
helped me to further question the data in ways that I had not considered.
As the codes evolved as I went on, I added codes, combined several codes, and deleted
codes. For example, I deleted codes that only applied to one or two cases and combined codes,
such as I combined multiple codes relating to interaction rituals. Strauss (1987) stated: “In
qualitative research, the goal of coding is not primarily to count things, but to “fracture” the
data” (p. 29). Upon further analysis, I rearranged them into categories that facilitated comparison
between things in the same category and aided in the development of theoretical concepts that I
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 78
had begun to identify (Maxwell, 2013). I then combined my axial codes into themes (Miles,
Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014). I categorized codes by part-time faculty member’s identity, part-
time faculty member’s autonomy, organization actions towards part-time faculty member, and
part-time faculty member’s understanding of norms. For example, under the category of part-
time faculty member’s identity, there were 12 sub-codes, such as lone sense making, viewing
self as instructor versus practitioner, and keeping connection to academic world as part-time
faculty member. These categories and themes served as answers to my research question.
Limitations and Delimitations
The limitations of this study relate to the credibility of my findings and being a novice at
qualitative research. I relied on the credibility of my contacts at the higher education institutions
to direct me to part-time faculty who they believed were best suited to provide their thoughts and
experiences to my study. I also relied on my participants to be honest in their discussion of their
experiences and beliefs. As a novice at qualitative research, I struggled to determine how to ask
effective probing questions during the interview. Therefore, I felt more comfortable as I
progressed in the interviews but I still found probing challenging due to the very unique and
diverse experiences of the participants. An additional limitation was that my sample, a private
and a public institution in two different states, did not allow me to generalize the experiences of
the part-time faculty members. They are not correlated in any way to institution type or the states
that they reside in because this was not the goal and my samples did not allow me to do so.
The delimitation of the study was that I was the sole instrument for data collection and
analysis for the study. Since I am a novice at qualitative research, I was not able to construct an
interview protocol that sufficiently covered what I needed to know. I had little experience with
expectations of the tenure track and the PhD track in higher education as well as the part-time
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 79
and full-time positions. This lack of experience was reflected in the several of the questions that
I did ask and also reflected in questions I should have asked but did not. I also did not know
certain aspects about the contexts of these positions within higher education, which was reflected
in my questions. I did not conduct the interviews well enough to get the information I need to
answer my research question; for example, there were instances when I did not realize a piece of
information was a marker and therefore did not probe when needed to. For example, during the
interview with Sean, I did not ask questions to further clarify his interactions with his department
chair. These probes would have given me greater insight into his thoughts and feelings pertaining
to those particular interactions.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Since I was the primary instrument of data collection and analysis for this qualitative
study, I performed several strategies to address participants’ reactivity and my reflexivity as I
collected data. Ratcliff (1983) states “data do not speak for themselves; there is always an
interpreter, or a translator” (p. 149). In a qualitative study, validity is determined by the
credibility of the findings based on the data presented (Merriam, 2009). Interviews were the
primary tool for collecting data. I collected rich descriptive data from a diverse group of part-
time faculty for the purposes of analysis. I practiced reflexivity by creating interview protocols
that were clear and did not contain leading questions. I also considered research influence and
tried to maintain a professional and objective manner towards the part-time faculty. The semi-
structured interview protocols allowed the part-time faculty to answer my questions but they
were also encouraged to provide examples, thoughts, feelings, and more that added to the
richness of the data. When I thought appropriate, I probed for further information to better
understand their beliefs of belonging and exclusion. At times during the interviews, I performed
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 80
member checks with several of the part-time faculty members in order to ensure I understood the
information they told me.
Due to the large amount of rich, descriptive data I collected, I maintained an audit trail or
detailed account of my methods so that the reasons for my decisions concerning the study are
clear. This was done in an Excel sheet that listed my codes as well as in the notes and analytic
memos that I wrote through the analysis process. Discussions with my Dissertation Chair helped
me to understand any pieces of data that I found confusing and to help me understand the biases I
might have projected onto the data. Given my experiences as an adjunct instructor, which may
have affected how I interpret and analyze data, I utilized my reflective notes to detail my own
feelings and biases that I felt in regards to the information that the part-time faculty shared with
me during interviews. An example is that data analysis was particularly challenging when part-
time faculty spoke of the lack of support they received in their departments, which was a
challenge I also faced as an adjunct instructor. I tried to remain objective in those moments and
not ask leading questions for the part-time faculty to emphasize this point of frustration. Maxwell
(2013) stated one of the most effective ways to test the validity of findings is by challenging my
conclusions. I challenged my assumptions by writing analytic memos to examine my biases and
looked for counter understandings and data that contradicted my expectations. For example, it
was easier for me to identify with the experiences of the part-time faculty who were new in the
field as opposed to the part-time faculty who were nearing the end of their careers or in
retirement. I placed myself in the positions of the older faculty and tried to challenge the
assumptions I had of part-time faculty nearing or in retirement by considering these thoughts and
feelings in my analytic memos. I reflected on these experiences, assumptions, and feelings
related to my research in order to remain objective during data analysis.
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 81
I performed adequate and continuous engagement with the data, including looking for
alternative explanations that might challenge or contradict my emerging understanding of the
phenomena, during data collection until I was assured that I reached saturation. I performed
triangulation across multiple sets of data in order to check information and ensure that the
findings were credible and that my readers would have confidence in what I found.
Ethics
There were three important steps I followed to ensure ethical practice, the right to privacy
of the participants and utilizing informed consent. Merriam (2009) describes that the ethical
dilemmas in qualitative research usually emerge while the researcher is in the field and often
relates to data collection and in the report of the findings. I followed Patton’s (2002) “Ethical
Issues Checklist” to ensure I conduced my study ethically. Specifically, I performed the
following steps: 1) clearly explained the purpose of the research to the participants, 2) ensured
confidentiality of participants by using pseudonyms and sharing how data will be stored on my
computer, 3) inquired into their institution’s IRB requirements, 4) communicated data ownership
to participants, 5) and consulted with my Dissertation Advisor on any ethical issues that may
arise.
Conclusion
In this chapter, I reviewed my research methods and how they helped answer my research
questions and relate to my conceptual framework. I explained the criteria I used to select my
participants and how I conducted interviews to collect data. I also discussed how I performed
data analysis and explained my credibility, trustworthiness and the steps I performed in the study
in an ethical manner.

PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 82
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
The purpose of this dissertation was to understand the aspects that contribute to part-time
faculty members perceiving a sense of belonging to or exclusion from their university’s
academic culture. The first chapter of this dissertation provided background information on the
rising number of part-time faculty members and the common conditions that prevent
development of a sense of belonging that they are presented with in the higher education
institutions in which they work. The second chapter presented a review of the literature on
culture and the development of schemas in organizational cultures, how contingent employees
make sense of their work environments, and a definition of belonging and studies pertaining to
belonging and the conceptual framework informed by the literature review. The third chapter
described the methodology and research design used to conduct this study. The findings
presented in this chapter answer the following research question: What do part-
time faculty perceive contributes to their sense of belonging to or exclusion from a university’s a
cademic culture? My conceptual framework aided my analysis of the data and helped me to
understand the factors that contribute to a part-time faculty member’s understanding of
belonging and the process the part-time faculty member undergoes in developing a sense of
belonging or exclusion from the university’s academic culture.
Data analysis revealed that similarities existed in how they defined belonging, what they
perceived contributed to their membership, and their understanding of support in their academic
cultures based on personal factors such as external employment, professional and academic
qualifications, and life phase, that contributed to their sense of belonging. Overall, part-time
faculty members perceived a sense of belonging when they were welcomed to contribute to their
university’s academic culture and their department and university had policies, practices and
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 83
norms that were embedded with the expectation that part-time faculty members would be
informed and contribute in the decision-making process.
This qualitative study used a multi-site case study method. Two 4-year higher education
institutions were chosen, one a private institution and the other a public institution, to recruit
part-time faculty. Maximum variation sampling was used to select and interview 14 part-time
faculty members representing a range of academic disciplines, professional backgrounds, and
years of teaching. The interviews were conducted in person, over the phone or through video
conferencing depending on which option the part-time faculty member felt was most convenient
and most desired. The interviews ranged from 40 minutes to 1 hour and 30 minutes.
Table 5 lists the part-time faculty who had a sense of belonging and Table 6 lists the part-
time faculty who felt exclusion. To understand the concept of belonging, I use Hagerty et al.’s
(1996) definition of belonging: “the experience of personal involvement in a system or
environment so that persons feel themselves to be an integral part of the system of environment”
(1996, p. 236). An individual’s personal characteristics, values and norms, and the organization’s
environment, climate, leadership, policies and procedures, have a reciprocal influence and will
affect the individual’s sense of belonging or exclusion. Exclusion is understood as the result of
not being welcomed into an environment or group and those within the environment or group
believe the individual does not have enough value to make a meaningful contribution. Shore et
al. (2011) state that exclusion can lead to negative cognitive, emotional, behavioral, and health
outcomes. Exclusion may also include violation of a psychological contract resulting in a
damage to the part-time faculty member’s trust in the organization and will lead to feelings of
frustration, disappointment, anger, betrayal and psychological distress.
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 84
The names of the part-time faculty are grouped in the tables by their institution’s type.
Several of the departments are coded using similar colors to represent part-time faculty who
worked in the same department. Of the 14 part-time faculty members who participated in this
study, nine worked at the same public institution but in a range of departments. Two participants
worked in more than one department and their primary affiliations are noted in the column that
lists their departments. The remaining five participants worked at the same private institution and
in the same department. Six of the 14 felt a sense of belonging and 8 did not. Of the six who
experienced a sense of belonging, three were from the public institution and were from different
departments. Three were from the private institution.
The tables also include the level of importance that part-time faculty members attributed
to belonging. Of the 14 part-time faculty members, six communicated that belonging was
important to them and eight indicated it was not important to them. More specifically, three
believed belonging was very important, four believed it was important and seven believed it was
not important. Of the seven who did not believe it was important, five of the part-time faculty
members reported having a sense of belonging outside of their roles as instructors, rather in their
professional positions or as retirees. This will be discussed further in the findings.
It is important to note that part-time faculty in both settings experienced a sense of
belonging and part-time faculty members in both setting who experienced exclusion. The
institutional context did not impact the development of a sense of belonging or sense of
exclusion. Further, the department setting also did not impact the development of a sense of
belonging since the tables show that part-time faculty members in the same department had both
a sense of belonging and a sense of exclusion.

PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 85
Table 5
Characteristics of Study Participants who Experienced a Sense of Belonging
Name Institution
Type
Department Importance of
Belonging
Alexandra Public Management and Industrial Relations Very important
Elle Public Primary affiliation: English;
Business
Very important
Laura Public Music Important
Melissa Private Education (Master of Arts in Teaching) Very important
Naomi Private Education (Master of Arts in Teaching) Important
Rebecca Private Primary affiliation: Education (Master of
Arts in Teaching);
EdD Educational Leadership
Important

Table 6
Characteristics of Study Participants who Experienced Exclusion
Name Institution
Type
Department Importance of
Belonging
George Public Urban and Regional Planning Not important
Kayla Public English Important
Leon Public Information and Computer Sciences Not important
Madalyn Public Urban and Regional Planning Not important
Samuel Public Primary Affiliation: Sociology; Women’s
Studies
Not important
Sofia Public Music Not important
Aimee Private Education (EdD Educational Leadership) Not important
Sean Private Education (Masters of Learning Design and
Technology)
Not important

The following findings support the conceptual framework of a sense of belonging of part-
time faculty presented in Chapter 2. The findings contribute to an understanding of the ongoing
mental dialogues (Barak, 1999; Harris, 1994) the part-time faculty member has to understand his
or herself in relation to the academic culture. Although the three findings connect to and overlap
with each other, the conceptual framework differentiates the various pieces of belonging. These
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 86
pieces can be teased apart in order to better understand the part-time faculty member’s
experiences.
First, I present findings that there were similarities in how part-time faculty defined
belonging. Within the definitions, the part-time faculty members included similar analogies to
represent environments that supported a sense of belonging. Further, part-time faculty with a
sense of belonging focused more on environments that met their socio-emotional needs than
part-time faculty who experienced exclusion in their academic cultures.
Second, I present findings that reciprocity between the faculty member and his or her
department/institution was related to a sense of belonging. A reciprocal relationship between the
part-time faculty member and the department/institution, and therefore a sense of belonging,
developed/existed under the following circumstances: 1) the department/institution extended an
invitation to the part-time faculty member and the part-time faculty member accepted, 2) the
part-time faculty member demonstrated an interest in being integrated into the
department/institution (initially due to having high desire and energy for involvement) and the
department/institution accepted. A reciprocal relationship did not develop/exist, and led part-time
faculty members to feel excluded when: 1) the institution did not reach out or 2) they reached out
and were rebuffed. Therefore, the part-time faculty described three types of relationships. One
led to the part-time faculty members experiencing belonging and two led to the part-time faculty
members experiencing exclusion.
Third, I present findings that part-time faculty members who desired and devoted energy
towards being involved in their academic cultures contributed to a sense of belonging. These
faculty members sought opportunities to contribute their knowledge to their departments and
participate in committees or workshops. Part-time faculty who did not desire and/or seek
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 87
opportunities for involvement experienced exclusion and marginalization. These part-time
faculty members chose to not engage with the community or were not afforded opportunities to
engage with the community and experienced feelings of resentment and frustration.
In the remainder of this chapter, I present my analysis of the data that supports these
findings.
Finding 1: Similarities in Definitions of Belonging
Data revealed that overall, the part-time faculty members defined belonging similar ways.
Definitions included similar analogies and feelings about belonging. This is consistent with
Barak’s (1999) research that members of a group who share an “invisible diversity” (p. 51)
attribute, such as not having tenure within an organization, will develop similar symbols, norms
and values that influence their worldview and behaviors. All of the part-time faculty members
shared invisible diversity attributes, such as not having tenure, being less physically present in
their academic cultures, and not being invited to participate in decision-making, which were
some of the ways that shaped how they viewed belonging within their academic cultures.
Although the part-time faculty members had diverse experiences within their academic cultures
that led to either a sense of belonging or exclusion, the act of being a part-time faculty member
within an academic culture contributed to a consistent understanding of belonging that bound
them together.
Additionally, analysis revealed that although definitions were similar, the focus or where
they placed their emphasis within the definitions differed depending on whether the part-time
faculty member experienced a sense of belonging or exclusion in his or her academic culture.
The six part-time faculty members who had a sense of belonging provided definitions with an
emphasis on connectedness that related to their understanding of belonging. Their definitions
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 88
more specifically pointed to working in supportive academic cultures that had policies and
practices that made them feel as though they were welcomed members. In contrast, the eight
part-time faculty members who had a sense of exclusion provided definitions that did not have as
strong of a focus on connectedness. The definitions of the part-time faculty members who
experienced exclusion signaled they worked in academic cultures with a focus on contractual
and/or economic needs. Thus, that which contributed to the part-time faculty member’s
perception of belonging or exclusion contributed to his or her definition of belonging.
The following examples demonstrate similarities in the use of analogies within the
definitions of belonging. Additionally, the difference in focus in the definitions of part-time
faculty with a sense of belonging or exclusion is also discussed.
Definitions with Analogies that Represented Connectedness
Part-time faculty members defined connectedness through analogies that used very
intimate terms such as community, family and home. Barley (1983) states signification is the
process by which conditions, such as events, words, and interactions carry meaning for members
of the given environment. Signification or the construction of analogies can help employees
make sense of the emotional and cultural context of an organization’s culture (Barley, 1983). The
analogies helped the part-time faculty members to make meaning of their experiences and also
represented the academic cultures they worked in that encouraged connectedness among all
faculty and not only those who were full-time. Their definitions were consistent with Parks et
al.’s (1998) findings that employees will have positive perceptions of their workplaces when an
emphasis is placed on relations and not contractual employment agreements. The analogies were
used to convey the positive relations among members of an academic culture and the feelings
that resulted from such relations. Three of the part-time faculty members used community, three
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 89
of the part-time faculty members used family, and two of the part-time faculty members used
home as analogies. The part-time faculty who shared the invisible diversity attributes within their
academic cultures used these analogies to represent environments that would foster a sense of
belonging. The following are examples of definitions from part-time faculty who believed
belonging was equivalent to being connected within environments that caused them to feel like
members of a community, family, or home.
For example, Kayla was one of three of the part-time faculty who provided a definition of
belonging that used community as an analogy:
I feel it means that I can contribute, I think of belonging as really closely connected to
community. Community, and maybe place, I feel without that then I don’t really feel like
I belong. But within the community and place, I think I feel I belong when I can
contribute something to it, when I can make differences in it. When people know me, and
understand me, and when I can be present.
Kayla focused on having a connection to a community and making contributions to a
community. Being “really closely connected” to a community meant to Kayla that people knew
her and understood her. This connection to others also related to her connection to the place
itself. She wanted to not only be emotionally and mentally present within the community but also
physically present. Being fully present in these ways allowed her to “make differences” or to be
actively engaged in the community. Because she was so connected and embedded in the
community, she could make differences. Kayla elaborated that she did not feel belonging without
connections to the community and the place that the community resided in. For Kayla, both
connections with and contributions to a community resulted in a sense of belonging.
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 90
Elle was one of three part-time faculty who provided a definition with family as an
analogy of belonging:
A sense of belonging is just to have a sense of comfort in any space as part of a family
moving in the same direction.
Elle’s definition highlighted feeling comfortable in a space as though with one’s own family. To
feel comfort, Elle stated that there should be a level of familiarity with those she worked with
and she implied that this was similar to the level she had with her own family members. This
meant working in a space that she could be herself and not hide her personality, values, beliefs,
ideas, etc. To move together meant that they understood each other well enough that they would
be able to work towards “the same direction.” This connectedness to one another allowed them
to be aligned in what they were trying to accomplish.
Alexandra was one of two part-time faculty who used the analogy of a home in her
definition of belonging to describe acceptance and collaboration in a work environment:
The word belonging means a sense of home, and being accepted, being welcomed and
having the ability to work with others. Meaning I actually have the ability to be a host as
well and vice versa. Just have a feeling of ownership. Not ownership property wise, but
that feeling that you’re being a part of something greater, bigger than you.
To Alexandra, the feelings she had when she was in her home were the same feelings she would
have in a work context where she felt a sense of belonging. She felt she belonged when she felt
people accepted and welcomed her. One way this was done was through being provided the
opportunity to work with others. In a home context, people were able to interact or work with
others and not in isolation. Alexandra implied with the word “ability” in the phrase “ability to
work with others” that there should not only be offers to involve her but her membership in the
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 91
workplace should also include recognition of her capacity to choose to work with others. This
communicated to Alexandra that others accepted her and wanted her around and they recognized
that she had competence and expertise to contribute to the department. Also, this connected to
her explanation of the analogy of a home by discussing the idea of hospitality. She was
embedded in the department so much so that she could be a host and welcome others. She
provided hospitality. But others also had a sense of obligation to her. She was deserving of
hospitality. She clarified that her ability to give and to contribute to an academic culture was
much more than mere ownership (non-property based but to have responsibility for) of her
position within the academic culture but, rather, a synergy occurred between her and the
academic culture due to her contributions and relations with others. She was a contributor of
something beyond herself. Alexandra viewed acceptance, hospitality and ownership as
contributing to a sense of belonging.
The part-time faculty who experienced belonging used analogies of community, family
and home to describe environments that fostered a sense of belonging. Since these part-time
faculty members shared an invisible diversity attributes, their use of signification to understand
their environments resulted in similar analogies. These analogies provide insight into the
characteristics and conditions that contribute to that which a part-time faculty member perceive
contributes to a sense of belonging.
Definitions with a Socio-emotional Focus
Part-time faculty members who had a sense of belonging in their academic cultures
provided definitions of belonging that focused on being in environments that met their socio-
emotional needs. The definitions discussed working in environments that caused them to feel
calm, comfortable, accepted, respected, value, fulfilled, and happy. The part-time faculty
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 92
members experienced positive feelings because although they shared invisible diversity
attributes, they worked in academic cultures that did not exclude them for their diversity
attributes but respected them and encouraged their participation. The departments created an
environment where the part-time faculty members were accepted and were respected members of
the academic culture. This is consistent with Shore et al.’s (2011) assertions that it is not enough
for organizations to focus on inclusion but to also meet the psychological needs of its employees.
They suggest that creating an environment that supports employees’ sense of belonging and
respects their unique contributions will meet their psychological needs. The following two are
examples of definitions that focus on socio-emotional needs in their definitions of belonging.
Laura provided an example of the feelings that she felt were connected to a sense of
belonging:
So it’s something I’ve considered of what it means to identify in a certain way, or to feel
at home in a certain place or to belong in a certain place. I suppose it boils down to
whether I feel respected, whether I feel valued, whether my concerns and needs are met
and sort of taken into account, or not…So, I think respect is a big thing. And also from
my perspective, feeling comfortable.
In Laura’s definition, she provided a context for the feelings that emerged when she felt a sense
of belonging. She stated the following actions, identifying, feeling at home and belonging within
a place, contributed to developing a sense of belonging. She explained that the most essential or
“what it boils down to” was her feeling respected and valued by others. Laura elaborated that this
was demonstrated through being within a responsive environment that addressed her concerns
and needs. She implied when she said “so, I think respect is a big thing” that the environment
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 93
was not only responsive but also respected her fully enough to meet her needs and concerns.
Additionally, this type of environment made her feel comfortable because of its responsiveness.
Rebecca’s definition provided greater insight into the positive feelings experienced when
one had a sense of belonging:
For me, belonging is a two-way street of me feeling like I’m enjoying where I’m at and
also having that sense of fulfillment and joy or calm or just sort of being grounded in a
space and feeling like the people that share that space are happy to see me, are looking
forward to accessing my areas of expertise.
Rebecca’s definition touched upon several positive emotions she felt when she
experienced a sense of belonging. These emotions included enjoyment, fulfillment, joy, calm,
and feeling grounded. For Rebecca, belonging involved enjoying the place and feeling a part of
or “grounded” in the space. She included that she shared the space with others, which implied
that besides her own feelings, there were others who contributed to her feelings and who could
likewise contribute to their feelings. She explained that these individuals were both happy about
her presence in the environment and wanted to access her knowledge, which made her happy.
Connectedness was the focus within definitions provided by part-time faculty who had a
sense of belonging in their academic cultures. The focus reflected the respect and encouragement
they experienced from others within their academic cultures, regardless of the part-time faculty
members’ invisible diversity attributes. These definitions provide insight into academic cultures
that provided for the socio-emotional needs of their part-time faculty therefore contributing to
the part-time faculty members’ sense of belonging.

PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 94
Finding 1 Summary
Because part-time faculty members shared invisible diversity attributes, they defined
belonging using similar analogies due to the experiences they had within their academic cultures.
Part-time faculty who experienced a sense of belonging provided definitions that focused on
academic cultures that supported their connectedness as opposed to the part-time faculty
members who experienced exclusion and provided definitions that did not have a strong focus on
connectedness. The part-time faculty members’ definitions of belonging demonstrated how those
with an invisible diversity attribute understood belonging and conditions that contributed to
belonging in their academic cultures. The conditions that fostered a sense of belonging are those
found in the conceptual framework: basic underlying assumptions that part-time faculty
members are members of the department and institution, reciprocal relations that contributed to
connectedness, and a focus on meeting the part-time faculty members’ socio-emotional needs
that included valuing of their skills and knowledge.
Finding 2: Reciprocity Contributed to the Part-time Faculty Member Having a
Sense of Belonging
Reciprocity was a critical condition that contributed to some of the part-time faculty
members feeling a sense of belonging in their academic cultures. The absence of reciprocity, on
the other hand, contributed to others feeling excluded. Of the 14, nine (Naomi, Alexandra,
Rebecca, Elle, Laura, Melissa, Sean, Leon, Kayla) part-time faculty members described a
reciprocal relationship that contributed to a sense of belonging. However, although reciprocal
relationships contributed to a sense of belonging, it did not create an overall sense of belonging.
This is the reason why the list provided here does not match with the tables (Table 5 and Table
6) presenting those part-time faculty members who experienced a sense of belonging and
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 95
exclusion. For example, Kayla, Leon, and Sean, stated the importance of reciprocity in
contributing to a sense of belonging but reported having experienced an overall sense of
exclusion. Therefore, the nine part-time faculty members recognized reciprocity as an important
aspect that can contribute to having a sense of belonging but does not solely contribute to an
overall sense of belonging.
Reciprocity was described by all nine as having a great influence on their feelings of
acceptance and value. Lawrence and Corwin (2003) state the conditions that lead to feelings of
strong membership in an organization: numerous face-to-face interactions that are highly focused
and have high levels of positive emotional intensity. Finding 2 differs from the sub-theme of
definitions with a socio-emotional focus in Finding 1 in that reciprocal relations are understood
through the organization schema as seen in the conceptual framework. Reciprocity, as
understood by the part-time faculty members, was informed by the academic department and
institution’s climate, leadership, policies and practices. The definitions with a socio-emotional
focus are enacted through the self-schema in the conceptual framework. These definitions were
informed by the part-time faculty members’ academic and professional credentials, external
employment, and life phase as well as their energy and desire for involvement.
Since part-time employees challenge accepted notions of space (physically being present)
and time (the amount of time being present) in organizational contexts (Lawrence & Corwin,
2003), the notable effort to create a reciprocal relationship by the part-time faculty member or an
individual in the department or both was discussed during the interviews. However, the part-time
faculty members explained how they overcame this challenge by negotiating their membership
through finding ways to contribute or receiving suggestions of ways to contribute to the
department that led to a reciprocal relationship with an individual or group in their department.
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 96
Exclusion was experienced when seven (George, Kayla, Leon, Madalyn, Sofia, Samuel,
and Aimee) of the 14 part-time faculty members engaged in the process of negotiating his or her
membership through contributions to the department but received no reciprocation from the
department or the department rebuffed the part-time faculty member. The part-time faculty
members experienced a break in the psychological contracts, or the belief that a future return
would be made after a contribution (Rousseau, 1989), they had with their departments. This
break in the psychological contract led to feelings of frustration and a lack of trust in the
department. Part-time faculty members who experienced exclusion in their academic cultures
were repeatedly reminded of their invisible diversity attributes, which were not valued. Part-time
faculty who were rebuffed felt that they were seen as outsiders by those who were insiders in the
department, the full-time faculty. This is consistent with Shore et al. (2011) who state exclusion
occurs when an employee is not welcomed as a member of the organization and is viewed by the
organization as not having any unique value as opposed to employees who are welcomed as
members and seen as having unique value. Although all the excluded part-time faculty members
who were interviewed chose to continue their employment in the department, they stated they
felt a lack of comfort in their departments and feelings of anger and injustice.
The two themes relating to the part-time faculty who did and did not experience
reciprocity in their academic cultures are discussed below.
Theme 1: Presence of Reciprocal Relationship Contributed to Belonging
Reciprocity between the part-time faculty member and an individual or individuals within
the academic culture led to nine of the part-time faculty member having a sense of belonging.
Nine part-time faculty (Elle, Laura, Melissa, Sean, Leon, Kayla, Rebecca, Naomi, and
Alexandra) who expressed a sense of belonging due to a reciprocal relationship described
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 97
experiences in which they reached out to their departments and were met with welcome. The
reciprocal relationship was initiated by the part-time faculty member with an individual or
individuals within the department who responded. The reciprocal relationships had the following
characteristics: a) the part-time faculty member experienced positive emotions, b) numerous
interactions between the part-time faculty member and individual within the department, and c)
the part-time faculty member became more informed about his or her academic culture. This is
consistent with McClure and Brown’s (2008) finding that contributing work and being
recognized for one’s work by others in an organization allowed individuals to feel a sense of
belonging in their workplace. Therefore, the part-time faculty member developed a sense of
belonging due to an individual within the department responding which contributed to a
reciprocal relationship.
The following are examples of the reciprocal relationships part-time faculty members
engaged in that contributed to their sense of belonging within their academic culture.
Alexandra and her supervisor, who served as the department chair, had a reciprocal
relationship that consisted of regular and numerous interactions concerning information about
the department and instructional guidance. In addition to information sharing and guidance, she
stated she felt that she was a member because he included her in all events that occurred in the
department. Further, Alexandra explained that it was more than solely inclusion and appreciation
that she received from her department chair, he also contributed to the reciprocal relationship by
being a mentor to her. When asked in what ways did her department chair show appreciation for
her, she explained the greater role he had:
No, I think it’s just my personal interaction with him daily and weekly, just reaching out
to him on various things. Direction. I feel like I have a close enough relationship with
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 98
him, nothing personal but more professional, that I feel that I could be open about
anything with him regarding [the university] and the students and whatnot.
Alexandra’s description of her relationship with her department chair revealed that their “close
enough relationship” allowed her to contact him whenever she needed advice and he in turn
responded to all her questions. In addition to the guidance that he provided, it was also implied
that he caused Alexandra to feel comfortable that she could be “open about anything” and knew
he would be willing to hold discussions with her regardless of the topic. The department chair
was able to initiate a reciprocal relationship with Alexandra by including her in events but then
solidified the relationship by providing guidance and direction to her when she was in need,
which resulted in Alexandra believing that she was a member and felt she belonged in the
department.
Naomi also shared a reciprocal relationship with her department chair that contributed to
her sense of belonging. Although many part-time faculty struggle with the limited time and space
they have within their academic cultures (Lawrence & Corwin, 2003), Naomi’s situation was
especially challenging because she lived in a different state than where her university was
located. Naomi stated that the support of her department chair contributed to her believing that
she was a member of the department even though she could not be physically present but often
participated through video or phone conferences. Despite her lack of physically being present in
the department, her department chair found ways to include her in projects. Naomi described
how much she valued the relationship with her department chair:
…but also as I said, having that relationship with [my department chair], that was, you
know, very valuable. The first year I thought he was going to shut me off email because it
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 99
was constant. I don’t understand this, I don’t understand that, I’m like what am I
supposed to do with this, I don’t know what to teach in this section, you know, and all.
Naomi greatly valued the relationship she had with her department chair because he was
responsive to all her questions and needs. This was especially important to her during her first
year of teaching in the department. The information he provided helped her to better perform her
duties as an instructor. The reciprocal relationship that occurred between Naomi and her
department chair helped her to become a better instructor.
Reciprocal relationships also occurred between the part-time faculty and other faculty
members. Rebecca discussed how faculty seeking to collaborate with her led to a reciprocal
relationship that made her feel as though she belonged in the department:
I guess the things that stick out to me are when I’m on a committee, I think in particular I
ask people and they really appreciate my contributions and say that they really need
someone on the staff who thinks like me. I’ve had faculty, when the school was looking
for full-time faculty and other faculty members passed information along, if I would be
interested? So things like that I guess. Faculty offering to team up with me on grant
writing, things like that.
Rebecca’s relationship with other faculty made her feel as though she was a member in the
department because of their recognition and appreciation of her contributions. Additionally, full-
time faculty who asked her to contribute to projects emphasized her peers’ beliefs that Rebecca
had knowledge to contribute to the department that they did not have. Being included in the
department’s projects also allowed the faculty members to share information with Rebecca that
she might not have had access to without them. Therefore, the faculty reciprocated to Rebecca by
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 100
showing their appreciation for her participation on projects and including her in information
sharing.
While nine of the part-time faculty believed reciprocal relationships contributed to a
sense of the belonging, four (Elle, Melissa, Leon, and Naomi) of the nine part-time faculty
expressed their belief that it was the part-time faculty member’s responsibility to create the
reciprocal relationship with an individual or individuals in their academic department and not
solely the responsibility of individuals within the department. The other five of the nine part-time
faculty members did not attribute responsibility of creating the reciprocal relationship to any
individual in particular. The belief of the four part-time faculty members and their efforts to
establish a reciprocal relationship is consistent with Hagerty et al. (1996) finding that the energy
one has for involvement and the desire for meaningful involvement are two important
antecedents to a sense of belonging. The part-time faculty who described having a positive
mindset, believed it was their responsibility to insert themselves into the academic culture, and
seek out opportunities resulted in their having a sense of belonging. The following are examples
of part-time faculty who discussed their feelings about their responsibility to create reciprocal
relationships.
Elle stated that she “inserts” herself into situations, created her community within the
department, and believed that belonging was as much her own effort as that of those within the
department. Besides desiring to be more involved in the department, Elle wanted to reach out
and establish relationships with other faculty in her department because she was not able to
attend committee meetings often due to her professional career. She supplemented committee
meetings with numerous attempts of reaching out to faculty through social contexts. This is why
during the interview, Elle stated that she had found ways to connect with other faculty in her
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 101
department on her “own terms.” She dedicated time and energy towards these efforts because she
found value in not only getting to know her colleagues but believed this was an effective way to
establish herself as a member in the department. She further explained:
There again, it’s an example of my community. I’ll make it my own and then they might
not know me now, but then we’ll sit and chat. Then I’ll see them, whoever it was that was
there on campus the next week. Now it’s like, “Oh, she is cool and she's not a nitwit.”
Due to Elle’s desire and energy for involvement, Elle took ownership of creating the community
she wanted to be a member of within her academic department. She even reached out to those
who she did not know through socializing or how she described they would “sit and chat.”
Reaching out to the faculty resulted in them understanding her and believing that she was more
than just a “nitwit” but a member of the community. Since Elle believed it was her responsibility
to construct a community that she was a member of and the reciprocal relationships that
developed contributed to her sense of belonging.
Melissa also agreed that it was the responsibility of the part-time faculty member to seek
information about opportunities or contacts which would lead to further opportunities:
Yeah. As an online instructor, I think that it’s easy to not feel a part of the full-time
faculty, because you’re literally physically removed from, I guess the daily discussions
that happen on campus. There are a lot of opportunities for part-time faculty to take
advantage of. For example, I started going to faculty meetings in person, and meeting
people. Last year I participated in their faculty retreat, which was great. I think that being
an online instructor, to your original question, yes, it’s easy to feel like not a part of the
faculty, but you just have to be proactive about the way that you include yourself,
because there are opportunities.
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 102
Melissa explained that she understood why other part-time faculty members, specifically those
who taught online, believed it was easy to feel as though they were not members of their
academic cultures since they were not physically present to engage with other faculty. However,
she believed there were lots of opportunities for part-time faculty to participate in but it was up
to the faculty member to be proactive and reach out to those within the department. She gave the
example of attending faculty meetings, which were positive experiences and made her to feel as
though she was a part of the faculty.
The four part-time faculty members acknowledged that they understood part-time faculty
members might not feel a sense of belonging especially if the part-time faculty member was busy
with his or her own professional career or if no one in the department had reached out to the part-
time faculty member. However, the four part-time faculty members recommended being
proactive and looking for opportunities. Their examples demonstrated that these part-time faculty
members believed it was the part-time faculty member’s responsibility to create reciprocal
relationships. When the department reacted in a welcoming manner, reciprocal relationships
were constructed and the part-time faculty member had a sense of belonging.
A reciprocal relationship between a part-time faculty member and an individual or
individuals within their academic environment contributed to the part-time faculty members’
sense of belonging. Further, several of the part-time faculty members believed it was their
responsibility to reach out to the departments to initiate the relationship. The reciprocal
relationships caused the part-time faculty members to experience positive feelings, contributed to
the department, and got to know more individuals within their academic cultures.

PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 103
Theme 2: Absence of Reciprocal Relationship Contributed to Exclusion
An absence of reciprocity between the part-time faculty member and the department led
to the part-time faculty member not having a sense of belonging. Seven of the 14 part-time
faculty members experienced either absence or rebuff to the reciprocal relationship. Sean was not
included in this group of seven even though he had an overall sense of exclusion because he had
a reciprocal relationship with his department chair. However, Sean’s reciprocal relationship with
his department chair did not create an overall sense of belonging. Two sub-themes emerged from
the lack of a reciprocal relationship: 1) an absence of effort on behalf of the department and 2)
the part-time faculty member reaching out and being rebuffed by the department. Lawrence and
Corwin (2003) provided insight into the great importance interaction rituals have in establishing
the acceptance or marginalization of employees in a work environment. A sense of belonging
developed within those who had interactions with other faculty that included forming
relationships socially or collaborating on projects. Marginalization developed among part-time
faculty who were not engaged in similar ways or they were not as engaged as full-time faculty
members. The part-time faculty inferred that they were being marginalized because they
compared their experiences in their academic cultures to their professional experiences or they
compared the treatment they received with that of the full-time faculty. This is related to
McClure and Brown’s (2008) finding that individuals have to know belonging in order to know
what not belonging is like. Exclusion due to the department’s absence of reciprocation or rebuff
to the part-time member reaching out contributed to the part-time faculty member feeling a lack
of comfort with those in the department and trust in the department. These sub-themes are
discussed in more detail below.
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 104
Absence of department effort. Out of the 14 part-time faculty members, four (Madalyn,
Sofia, Samuel, and Aimee) of the part-time faculty experienced exclusion due to an absence of a
reciprocal relationship with an individual within the academic culture.
Sofia described how she wished someone or others within her department would reach
out to her but no one was making the effort due to other priorities:
…they might go more out of their way to welcome me a little bit. But yeah, as it is now,
everybody has their own stuff to do, you all have to go make our coffees, go to class,
lesson planning, and get our mail, and that’s the game, say hi on our way. That’s about it.
Sofia emphasized her desire for more interaction with others in her department, however, due to
everyone’s busyness, no one took the time to reach out to her. She equated this to being like a
“game” that individuals within her department play, implying that others seemed to actively try
not to interact with each other. The lack of interaction among the individuals resulted in Sofia
not developing a reciprocal relationship with anyone within her academic culture.
Aimee went further than Sofia by trying to negotiate her membership in the department
by reaching out to another faculty member but the reciprocal relationship was never fully
created. She explained:
I made an outreach. I’m the adjunct, right? I made an outreach to the full-time faculty
member who’s teaching, and asked her if we could meet, so we could coordinate, and
what I was initially imagining is that we could share resources, maybe alternate taking
the lead in planning the course on weeks, or if we were going to ... Because a lot of the
readings in the course that were developed are maybe 10 years old right now, so one
thing that I’m finding that I have to do is augment it with more recent things, and she was
very nice and responsive, but in the end, we never met, so I don’t know. I don’t think it’s
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 105
... I think it’s just that people are busy, but probably if I had been a full-time faculty
member, we would have met. Like I said, I don’t feel bad about it, but it isn’t the same
experience I would have if I were a full-time faculty member.
Aimee reached out to the full-time faculty member to meet to discuss aligning their course
materials, however, the full-time faculty members never followed-up with Aimee. It was implied
in Aimee’s statement, “I made the outreach. I’m the adjunct, right?” that she believed it is the
responsibility of the part-time faculty to reach out to the full-time faculty. Aimee had plans for
how they could help each other and improve their courses. Although Aimee said that she
understood everyone was busy and not able to connect with each other, she believed that if she
was a full-time faculty member than the individual would have gotten back to her.
Part-time faculty who experienced an absence of reciprocal relationships in their
academic cultures did not have a sense of belonging. Exclusion was experienced when the part-
time faculty member engaged in the process of negotiating his or her membership through
contributions to the department but received no reciprocation from the department. The
reciprocal relationships were not initiated by anyone within the department and led the part-time
faculty member to feel as though he or she was not valued or not valued as much as the full-time
faculty.
Part-time faculty member’s efforts rebuffed. This section discusses part-time faculty
members attempting to create a reciprocal relationship with the department but being rebuffed.
Three of the part-time faculty members (George, Kayla and Leon) described instances that fell
into this category. Faculty who reached out to their departments or universities but were rebuffed
for doing felt excluded and felt it violated the psychological contract the part-time faculty
member had with the department and institution. Rousseau (1989) explained that violating a
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 106
psychological contract means an organization failed to respond to an employee’s contribution in
a way that the employee believed the organization should have responded. This violation will
lead to the part-time faculty members feeling frustration, disappointment, anger, betrayal and
overall psychological distress.
Kayla stated the emotion she most often felt when walking into her department was stress
because of the way other faculty treated her. She described her frustration when she felt the
faculty rebuffed her because she was a part-time faculty member and were uninterested in getting
to know her. Kayla gave an example of when she felt rejected when she reached out to her
supervisor:
Once I tried to get this certain distinction for my class, to make students more interested
in taking it, so it would fulfill another department basically. My associate chair, who’s in
charge of this said, she just said, “No, you can’t do that.” I was, “Okay.” [She said]
“Yeah, it’s a whole long process you just can’t do it.” But I get the feeling that other
faculty, some faculty would have a better understanding of what that is. I didn’t even
know that it was a whole thing, I thought you could just, if you fulfilled the requirements
that you could have it. I felt really chastised, almost like I felt when I was a graduate
student, which is weird because I’m, I have a Ph.D. I shouldn’t feel this way anymore.
That could just be her way, but it felt, “you don’t know what you’re doing, let me tell
you, you can’t do it, or you can’t do it with us.” It wasn’t any explanation about why.
Yeah. It was a lack of, almost, “you don’t really need to understand this about our
department, you just need to know that it’s not right.” I feel if I were a full-time, wouldn’t
I need to understand it? Why shouldn’t I understand the department?
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 107
The negative interaction Kayla experienced when she requested information from her associate
chair caused her to feel “chastised.” She also felt her chair was being unfair and would not have
treated a full-time faculty member the same way as she treated her. Kayla did not understand
why she was treated differently and made to feel inferior because she had a Ph.D. and
instructional experience. Kayla’s associate chair’s dismissive attitude and unfair treatment
contributed to Kayla feeling excluded and marginalized from the department.
Leon also had experiences where he was not able to create reciprocal relationships with
his supervisor. Since he had taught as a part-time instructor for almost 15 years, he explained that
he has had supportive and unsupportive department chairs. He wished that department chairs
would go through sensitivity training in order to treat their employees better:
They should make department chairs take a sensitivity course. We have to take sensitivity
courses and all kinds of things. That’s daily seminars of all kinds which I think is very
good, very good that we do that. I think department chairs should have to take some sort
of seminar. Once they get that position, okay, we have to be certified that you went to the
seminar to explain to you how you treat lecturers and then bug you. You haven’t done it
yet. They bug you to take the sensitivity stuff… Yeah, because once I finally asked him,
“So and so, would you have anything for me this semester?” He says, “No, I think you’re
good.” You could tell where he’s coming from. “No, no, no. We’re good. We don’t need
you this semester.” You’re off the hook almost.
Leon wished for department chairs to be required to take sensitivity courses to treat part-time
faculty in a more supportive manner because he believed the department chairs did not take into
consideration that part-time faculty might rely on coursework as a source of income or enjoy
serving as instructors. Although Leon believed that his department chair might have had good
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 108
intentions to not offer him the course, the department chair’s actions caused Leon to feel that his
teaching and contributions to students are not valued. This was why Leon believed that
department chairs would benefit from sensitivity training to learn how to positively interact with
part-time instructors.
The part-time faculty members who were rebuffed for reaching out to individuals within
their academic departments experienced strong negative emotions and feelings of exclusion and
marginalization. These negative interactions communicated to the part-time faculty member that
he or she was not valued by the department and not seen as a member of the department. This
resulted in the part-time faculty members not developing any reciprocal relationships within their
academic cultures.
Finding 2 Summary
Part-time faculty who experienced an absence of reciprocal relationships in their
academic departments did not have a sense of belonging. Exclusion was experienced when the
part-time faculty member engaged in the process of negotiating his or her membership through
contributions to the department but received no reciprocation from the department. An absence
of effort on behalf of the department or the part-time faculty member reached out and was
rebuffed by the department. An absence of reciprocity between the part-time faculty member and
the department led to the part-time faculty member not having a sense of belonging.
Finding 3: Part-time Faculty Who Desired and Committed Energy Towards Involvement
Had a Sense of Belonging
I present the finding that the part-time faculty who demonstrated a desire towards
opportunities to be involved and committed energy toward making contributions and were met
with support from the academic cultures experienced belonging. They experienced a sense of
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 109
belonging as a result of demonstrating desire to contribute their knowledge or skills, receiving
the opportunity to contribute, being supported within their academic cultures and fulfilling the
commitment. Part-time faculty members conveyed their desire to contribute to their departments
and institutions by explaining during the interviews their excitement or happiness for the
opportunities that arose.
Of the seven who did not believe it was important, five of the part-time faculty members
reported having a sense of belonging outside of their roles as instructors, rather in their
professional positions or as retirees. For those for whom belonging was not considered
important, it might have been due to role conflict. Parks et al. (1998) found that contingent
employees often experience role conflict when they hold two or more positions and they will
have less role conflict when socio-emotional needs are met, such as working in an organization
characterized by “warmth and support” (p. 719). The contingent employee will experience
identity conflict and choose the employment contract that meets socio-emotional needs.
Therefore, the data suggests that these part-time faculty members chose their non-academic roles
or retirement roles over their part-time instructor roles because they worked in academic cultures
that did not have a socio-emotional focus or focus on connectedness which led them to perceive
exclusion in their academic cultures.
Five (Elle, Melissa, Naomi, Laura and Rebecca) of the six faculty members who had a
sense of belonging wanted to be involved in their academic cultures and dedicated energy
towards opportunities to be involved in their academic cultures. The one (Alexandra) part-time
faculty member who had a sense of belonging but did not desire nor dedicate energy toward
involvement was due to the commitments of her professional career and lack of time she could
dedicate outside of the classes she taught. Six (George, Samuel, Sofia, Aimee, Madalyn, and
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 110
Sean) of the eight faculty experienced exclusion and were not afforded the opportunities they
desired or did not desire and devote energy to being involved in their academic cultures, which
contributed to feelings of marginalization. This is supported by Hagerty et al. (1996) who state
that belonging occurs when an individual experiences involvement, a sense of meaningfulness
within the involvement, and positive emotional and behavioral responses toward his or her work
environment. For five of the six who experienced a sense of belonging, it was in part the product
of their exerting energy towards participation within or contribution to their academic cultures
that in turn resulted in positive experiences that were meaningful to them. The following
examples describe the experiences the five part-time faculty had when they were involved in
their academic cultures, which contributed to their sense of belonging. Also, examples are given
from the six participants who were not given opportunities to be involved or chose not to be
involved, which contributed to their sense of exclusion.
Theme 1: Belonging Due to Desire and Committed Energy Towards Involvement
Five of the six part-time faculty members who experienced a sense of belonging
indicated that this was connected to the desire they had expressed to be involved and the
opportunities they were given to contribute to their academic cultures. These part-time faculty
shared their desire to be involved in their academic cultures and put energy towards engaging in
opportunities to contribute their knowledge and expertise to their departments which led to a
sense of belonging. They viewed the opportunities as ways for them to contribute to the goals of
their departments, demonstrate their knowledge and skills, and network with their colleagues.
They were welcomed by their departments and were supported in their efforts to be involved.
The part-time faculty members described positive feelings they had towards opportunities for
involvements that included feeling excited, happy, and honored. This is consistent with three of
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 111
the constituents McClure and Brown (2008) found contribute to belonging within a workplace:
doing work and being recognized, being invited and learning to be a part of the workplace, and
being needed and finding oneself deeply involved in a profession.
Naomi explained that she sought opportunities to participate on several committees in her
department because she was able to contribute her knowledge to her department. She actively
sought opportunities to contribute her professional knowledge to the department. Naomi gave an
example of when she volunteered to lead a workshop to other part-time faculty members. Her
department chair approved of her to lead the workshop. This example was given as a reason why
she felt that she was a member of her department and the faculty. She described her experience
as:
Also, when I served on different committees. When there was an opportunity, like when I
was on the part-time faculty committee. I actually ran a workshop remotely for part-time
faculty. From here, it freaked me out to think about my face on this big screen, but they
had this big screen in the room, and I ran a workshop on collaborative learning. It was
weird because they were sitting in [another state] in a room, and I was on the big screen,
and I volunteered for that because I thought it would be cool to try. That was a lot of fun.
Naomi felt as though she was a member of her department because an opportunity for her to
contribute to her department was presented, she seized the opportunity, those within her
department encouraged her to carry out the opportunity, and she had a positive experience. She
had volunteered or been invited to participate on several committees and she additionally
volunteered for the opportunity to hold a workshop for part-time faculty. The experience was
positive for Naomi, as shown by her description of the experience being “cool” and “fun,” and
contributed to her feeling like a member of the department, even though she was not physically
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 112
present on campus and lived in a different state. Therefore, Naomi’s recognition of the
opportunity to contribute led her to engage with other faculty in her department in a meaningful
and positive way.
Rebecca also spoke about contributing to her department and being recognized for her
contributions. Like Naomi, Rebecca emphasized the energy she dedicated to identifying ways in
which she could contribute her knowledge and expertise to her department. When asked to
explain what she thought her full-time colleagues would say about her, she responded:
I think that they would talk about how I have been instrumental in getting the
breakthrough assignments, group work revision, syllabus revision. I’m regularly called
up to give my input for reading lists as well as some asynchronous content for online
sections and I think all the folks who have done committees with me will also say that
I’ve been ... a key committee member. Really helping them get through their programs.
Rebecca found ways to make herself “instrumental” to her department by providing new
knowledge and ideas to other faculty members that led to revisions in curriculum and course
redesign. Rebecca devoted energy to demonstrate to other faculty members that she was
interested in being more involved in her department. Due to the energy Rebecca devoted to
finding ways to contribute her expertise to the department, she was known by colleagues in her
department as a “key committee member” and an instructor who was “regularly called up” for
guidance. Within Rebecca’s statement is a sense of pride that she was able to contribute on
multiple occasions to the department and be recognized for her expertise and contributions.
Elle requested the opportunity to learn more about the assessment of student learning.
Her department chair approved for her to attend a conference pertaining to this topic. Elle
provided this as an example of an instance that made her feel like a member of the faculty and
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 113
showed her dedication to develop expertise in an area to contribute to the department. She
described her feelings as she recounted the experience:
Ones who attend this conference on assessment and how to use it, they were bringing in a
guest speaker from the mainland. I’m like, “I’d really like to go.” Then Mike, our chair
was like, “Put me in touch. Mary and Elle would like to go.” She's like, “Great.” It turns
out, which I didn’t know, it was 200 bucks a head for attendees. I sat with both of our ...
me, a woman who teaches Early College [Cultural] studies, a man who teaches sociology,
a man who teaches [Cultural] studies, and the two deans, and we were at the table. They
were like, “Hmm. Well, I’m really glad you’re here. This is really something.” They
know that there has got to be some feeling of like, “Hmm, how interesting that she’s so
dedicated and we barely pay her anything. That’s all right. She’s got input.”
Elle recognized an opportunity for her to engage and become more involved with her
department. Even though she did not know the price of attendance, she still felt comfortable
enough and devoted the energy to ask her department chair if she could attend the conference.
When Elle reflected back on sitting at the table with the other faculty and deans, she perceived
that they were glad she was present but also a little surprised. Elle believed they were surprised
that she would be so committed to devote additional time to participate in the professional
development, especially since as she says they believed “we barely pay her anything.” Elle
recognized that part-time faculty would have to really want and devote dedicated energy to being
involved in one’s academic culture. She was able to find an opportunity for involvement and
believed she was recognized by other faculty and deans for her commitment to her department.
Part-time faculty who desired and devoted energy toward involvement had a sense of
belonging. This is because they had decided to engage in opportunities to go beyond their
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 114
instructional obligations and explore ways in which they could be more involved in their
academic cultures. They had positive experiences when they were involved in their academic
cultures which provided meaning to them due to their contributions and led them to have a sense
of belonging.
Theme 2: Lack of Recognition of Part-Time Faculty Member’s Contributions
Six of the eight part-time faculty members who did not experience a sense of belonging
experienced exclusion due to not desiring involvement through contributions to their academic
cultures or not receiving recognition for contributions made to their academic cultures. These six
part-time faculty did not desire to be involved in their academic cultures because they created
boundaries around the amount of time and energy they devoted to their departments. They were
not willing to seek opportunities to involve themselves and therefore prevented themselves from
being members within their academic cultures. The part-time faculty who were not afforded
opportunities to be involved in their academic cultures described feelings of resentment and
frustration for not being allowed to be involved. The feelings of resentment and frustration were
due to the part-time faculty member not feeling valued for his or her unique contributions but
perceiving that others were valued and treated as insiders, which contributed to their sense of
exclusion.
Unlike the part-time faculty members who worked in departments that offered
opportunities to contribute their knowledge and skills, George was not offered the same
opportunities. Instead, opportunities focused on him as a community member. George resented
this treatment as a community member instead of being treated as a faculty member. He
described these feeling in the following response:
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 115
I don’t consider myself a member of that [the department]. They don’t consult me on
things, and I don’t mind. I don’t care. I don’t want to be on a lot of committees. I’ve
served on a couple [of Ph.D.] committees when I’ve been asked to do it. I’m very clear
on my relationship which is I am a lecturer or an adjunct, and I have no expectations
other than that.
Years ago, I mean it must have been 15, 20 years ago, I was invited to a meeting at the
house of some very senior retired deans and faculty members and all that stuff. I was
pretty junior then. They knew I was only an adjunct, a little low lowly adjunct. They were
really obsessed with trying to figure out how to make the university more relevant to
people who were not academics and were not students. It was kind of like this, it was a
town gown kind of conversation. I just listened and listened and listened, and finally
somebody said, “well Peter what do you think?” I said, “why don’t you just fix the
parking, and you’ll have people coming up here all the time? If that’s what you want. If
you want people on campus and you want more interchange with people from outside the
university, fix the parking. I could just about promise you they'd be there.”
George revealed that he was asked to contribute in ways that did not reflect his respect for him as
a faculty member with subject matter expertise. Instead, the only time when he was asked to
contribute was when students asked him to be on Ph.D. committees or when administrators asked
for his ideas as a member of the community. George’s anger and frustration could be felt through
how he perceived the administrators must have thought of him as a “little low lowly adjunct.” He
believed the academic culture that he worked in had clearly told him that he was not important
and his contributions were not wanted because they had not made requests of him and he did not
get invited to be involved in the department in meaningful ways. Therefore, this had caused
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 116
George to feel as though he did not have membership and he had limited his involvement, which
was revealed when he stated “…I don’t care. I don’t mind. I don’t want to be on a lot of
committees.” His marginalization from the department caused George to give up on his desire
and energy towards involvement that he probably had when he began teaching about 15 to 20
years ago.
Samuel was not willing to dedicate energy towards being involved in his academic
culture. He mentioned during the interview that his department lacked a “community identity”
and no one had truly reached out to him to provide opportunities for him to contribute to the
department. However, Samuel might not have even accepted these opportunities. He described in
the following response the boundaries he had created around himself within his university:
I would change the culture of the university, so that your membership in the university is
not defining of your life. There’s a lot of people in academia, not just my department, not
just my university, that think that if you want to be a professor, you want to be an
academic, that you should be willing to sacrifice all elements of your life other than that.
And that’s preposterous.
And the other thing is the work at the university seems to multiply endlessly and that’s
ridiculous too. People should be allowed to draw a line in the sand and say, “No I don’t,
you pay me to work 40 hours a week and I’m going to work 40 hours a week, and at the
end of it, whether the work is done to the educational mission of the university is not on
me, the employee, for not being willing to sacrifice everything else in my life.”
Samuel was unwilling to do what he perceived was required in order to be valued or a member of
the community. He felt that there were very few rules that protected his time as a part-time
faculty member and he tried to create boundaries in order to protect himself. If he did not create
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 117
these boundaries, then he believed it was almost like giving one’s whole life over to the
university and there was no end to all the work he could do for the university. Therefore, since he
was not willing to do this work, he was not a member of the academic community. If he could
change the culture, like he said he wished he could, he would change so that there would be
fewer responsibilities, more time dedicated to life outside of instruction and the university, and
he could be a member. He would have had a desire to be more involved and possibly dedicate
energy towards involvement but under the circumstances, he was not.
The examples present how part-time faculty member who did not desire or dedicate
energy toward involvement experienced marginalization because they were not afforded or did
not seek the opportunities to contribute to their academic cultures. They placed boundaries
around themselves in order to protect themselves from the hurt of not being invited or the
frustration of being asked to do more than he or she was willing to contribute. The unwillingness
of the part-time faculty members to be involved in their academic cultures contributed to their
feelings of marginalization and a lack of a sense of belonging.
Finding 3 Summary
I presented findings that demonstrated that faculty who desired and dedicated energy
towards involvement and were supported by their academic cultures experienced a sense of
belonging. Part-time faculty members experienced exclusion and marginalization when they did
not desire and chose not to dedicate efforts to being involved in their academic cultures. This
was due to working in academic cultures that were not encouraging of their involvement or did
not provide opportunities that the part-time faculty found meaningful.

PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 118
Conclusion
This study focused on part-time faculty members’ perceptions of that which contributed
to a sense of belonging or exclusion in an academic culture. Based on interviews with 14 part-
time faculty members, nine from a public institution and five from a private institution, three
findings emerged. The first finding was that the part-time faculty members shared invisible
diversity attributes that contributed to similarities in their definitions of belonging. Part-time
faculty who experienced a sense of belonging provided analogies and definitions of belonging
that focused on connectedness and had a socio-emotional emphasis. The second finding was that
reciprocal relationships contributed to a sense of belonging. The part-time faculty members
negotiated their membership through finding ways to develop a reciprocal relationship with an
individual or group in their department. Exclusion was experienced when the part-time faculty
member engaged in the process of negotiating his or her membership but received no
reciprocation from the department. The third finding was that part-time faculty members whose
desire to be involved and dedicated energy towards finding opportunities for involvement
contributed to a sense of belonging. Part-time faculty members who did not desire to be involved
and did not dedicate energy towards involvement but rather created boundaries around
themselves so as not to be involved in their academic cultures experienced exclusion and
marginalization.
Overall, part-time faculty members experienced a sense of belonging when they worked
in academic cultures that were supportive in meeting their socio-emotional needs through
reciprocal relationships and providing opportunities for them to share their knowledge and
contribute to their departments. These part-time faculty members perceived their academic
cultures demonstrated respect and value for them. Part-time faculty members who experienced
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 119
exclusion in their academic cultures were repeatedly reminded of their invisible diversity
attributes, which were not valued. The part-time faculty members were not welcomed to engage
in academic cultures but instead were relegated to the periphery. Chapter Five will discuss
implications and recommendations based on these findings.

PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 120
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This study sought to understand part-time faculty members’ perceptions of aspects within
their universities’ academic cultures that contribute to a sense of belonging or exclusion. Studies
have shown that part-time faculty members report experiencing a lack of security in their
positions and a lack of support from their higher education institutions (Kezar, 2013; Kezar &
Sam, 2013, 2014). This lack of support leads to part-time faculty experiencing frustration,
bitterness and even rage (Purcell, 2007). However, part-time faculty are composed of a wide
range of individuals with differing understandings of belonging within their academic cultures.
This study presented findings to provide insight into the different understandings part-time
faculty member of belonging and exclusion in their academic cultures.
The purpose of this study was to understand the aspects within an academic culture that
contribute to a part-time faculty member’s sense of belonging or exclusion. Minimal qualitative
data exists that presents the experiences of part-time faculty members in their higher education
institutions. Therefore, interviews were conducted with part-time faculty participants who taught
in two higher education institutions, one public and one private institution both located in the
Western United States. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with nine part-time faculty
members from the public institution and five part-time faculty members from the private
institution. To ensure maximum variation, the part-time faculty members came from a range of
disciplines, were at different life phases, had served for a range of years as instructors, and had
different academic credentials. After data collection, inductive data analysis and data coding was
performed to identify themes and patterns that emerged from the data. Three findings emerged
and are discussed below.

PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 121
Summary of Findings
The three findings suggested that part-time faculty defined belonging in similar ways and
therefore perceived connectedness, socio-emotional aspects, and reciprocity all contribute to a
sense of belonging. Part-time faculty who experienced exclusion felt disconnected and
unwelcomed in their academic cultures and that their socio-emotional needs were not met.
Further, part-time faculty who desired and dedicated energy towards involvement and were
supported by their academic cultures experienced a sense of belonging. This was in contrast to
part-time faculty who did not desire or dedicated energy towards involvement and experienced
negative feelings associated with their academic cultures.
The first finding was that part-time faculty who experienced a sense of belonging defined
belonging to a great degree in similar ways. I attributed this to the invisible diversity attributes
(Barak, 1999) that they shared, which shaped how they viewed belonging. The similarities within
the definitions on belonging included analogies that represented connectedness and a focus on
socio-emotional aspects. Analogies included intimate environments such as community, family
and home to describe environments that fostered a sense of belonging. The emphasis on meeting
socio-emotional needs was reflected in definitions that discussed working in academic cultures
that respected and encouraged part-time faculty members’ participation and contributions.
The second finding was that reciprocity contributed to part-time faculty members having
a sense of belonging in their academic cultures. The absence of reciprocity contributed to
feelings of exclusion. Exclusion was experienced when the part-time faculty member engaged in
the process of negotiating his or her membership through contributions to the department but
received no reciprocation from the department or was rebuffed by an individual within the
department. Therefore, two themes emerged: the presence of reciprocal relationships that
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 122
contributed to a sense of belonging and an absence of reciprocal relationships that contributed to
exclusion.
The third finding was that part-time faculty members who desired and committed energy
towards involvement had a sense of belonging. The part-time members made efforts beyond their
instructional requirements to contribute their knowledge and expertise to their departments and
were recognized for their contributions by individuals within their departments. Part-time faculty
members who lacked recognition of their contributions experienced exclusion due to working in
academic cultures that were not encouraging of their involvement or did not provide
opportunities that the part-time faculty members found meaningful.
This study sought to understand the aspects of an academic culture that part-time faculty
members perceive contribute to a sense of belonging or exclusion. Collectively, the findings
suggested that part-time faculty members perceive academic cultures that are supportive of their
socio-emotional needs and provide for reciprocal relationships contribute to their sense of
belonging. Additionally, part-time faculty members’ desire and energy towards involvement
through making contributions to their academic cultures also contribute to a sense of belonging.
The next section is a discussion of the implications and recommendations for practice, policy and
further research related to these findings.
Implications and Recommendations for Practice, Policy and Research
Currently three quarters of non-tenure-track faculty members in the United States teach
part-time in higher education institutions (Nica, 2017), yet part-time faculty often do not receive
the support necessary to be effective instructors (Chronister, Gansneder, & Harper, 2001; Kezar,
2013; Kezar & Sam, 2013; Purcell, 2007). Specifically, part-time faculty members struggle to be
accepted and viewed as members within their academic cultures. Although a growing number of
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 123
studies have been conducted to identify effective forms of support for this group of faculty, more
studies are needed to understand the part-time faculty members’ experiences within their
academic cultures. Part-time faculty are often lumped as a homogenous group but in reality is an
incredibly diverse group of individuals. Part-time faculty view their academic cultures differently
than full-time and tenured faculty members given the unique nature of their positions in higher
education and also have varying motivations and desires for being in higher education.
This study provided qualitative data on the experiences of part-time faculty working and
teaching within academic cultures in two higher education institutions. Thus far, studies on this
group of faculty have primarily focused on quantitative data collection, though important, the
studies have not provided the data needed to understand the aspects in higher education that are
beneficial or detrimental to part-time faculty members’ positions. Aspects of a work culture that
contribute to an individual’s sense of belonging is one way in which to understand the ways in
which individuals are accepted and supported. This study sought to understand the aspects that
part-time faculty members perceive contribute to a sense of belonging or exclusion in their
academic cultures. Although a complex group, themes emerged from the data that provide
implications and recommendations for practice, policy and research. Therefore, the following
recommendations should be considered options and a starting point for further development of
practice, policy and research on part-time faculty.
Implications for Practice
The findings suggested that part-time faculty members perceived a sense of belonging
when they worked in academic cultures that supported their socio-emotional needs through
connectedness to their departments and reciprocal relationships. However, it is difficult for part-
time faculty to experience connectedness and engage in reciprocal relationships because of the
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 124
contingent nature of part-time work. Additionally, faculty within the department may not
welcome or extend reciprocity to the part-time faculty, which led to limited communication and
connections between individuals within the department and the part-time faculty member.
Some part-time faculty members developed resentment and frustration towards their
academic cultures when their socio-emotional needs were not met. This led them to believe their
relationship with their academic cultures was solely based on contractual obligations. Feelings of
being an outsider, devalued and not aware of occurrences in the department all contributed to
feelings of exclusion. The result was that these part-time faculty members did not have a sense of
belonging in their departments and universities. Implications and recommendations for this
problem fell into two needs: connection is needed with a designated individual in the department
and connection is also needed with other part-time faculty members.
Connection to Department. This study revealed that part-time faculty felt excluded
when they were unable to develop social relationships and work collaboratively with individuals
within the department. Part-time faculty inferred from the lack of interactions or negative
interactions from individuals within their departments that they were being marginalized and
came to believe that they were not valued. These beliefs stemmed from the knowledge they had
of relationship building and reciprocal relationships from their professional careers or positions
at other universities. Although a majority of part-time faculty members in this study reported
believing that a sense of belonging within their instructional positions was not important to them,
these were also the faculty who experienced exclusion. For the six part-time faculty members
who experienced a sense of belonging, connectedness and reciprocal relationships are believed to
be contributing aspects of an academic culture to developing a sense of belonging. This was
consistent with studies that found interaction rituals between individuals that convey respect and
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 125
valuing contributed to a sense of belonging (Barak, 1999; Lawrence & Corwin, 2003; Shore et
al., 2011). Therefore, the following recommendations are offered:
1. Since part-time faculty may not understand the value of being involved in an
academic culture, it is recommended that an individual, such as a department chair,
course lead or full-time faculty member, serve as a mentor to provide guidance to the
part-time faculty member.
2. Additionally, because part-time faculty members reported being rebuffed by
individuals within their departments, it is recommended that the mentors receive
guidance on how best to serve as a mentor to other faculty. The guidance could come
from a designated department on campus, such as a department dedicated to faculty
development. The designated faculty mentor most importantly serves as an insider
who can convey the norms, values and practices of the department to the part-time
faculty member (Schein, 2010). Structured and consistent interaction (Barak, 1999)
between the mentor and part-time faculty member contributes to the development of a
sense of belonging. As the part-time faculty member becomes more acquainted with
the department and forms relationships with others, meetings with the mentor will be
less critical because the part-time faculty member is involved with the department to
the extent that he or she chooses.
Connection with Part-time Faculty. Repeatedly throughout the study, it was found that
part-time faculty members believed their socio-emotional needs were not met by individuals
within their academic cultures. Part-time faculty members who did have a sense of belonging
spoke of their academic cultures being analogous to families, communities or homes. Full-time
faculty members and supervisors within the academic culture may not be aware of the part-time
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 126
faculty members’ needs and concerns and may not understand these positions if they have never
served as part-time faculty. The experiences of part-time faculty members are different than the
experiences of full-time faculty members. Therefore, it is recommended:
1. Communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991) are established within departments
for part-time faculty members to serve as networks for information sharing and
problem solving to discuss how part-time faculty members can effectively thrive in
their academic cultures. Discipline specific communities of practice (Lave & Wenger,
1991) allow part-time faculty to develop feelings of membership within their
discipline, especially since part-time faculty often teach in multiple disciplines and
are informed of changes within their departments (Kezar, 2013). Part-time faculty
explained that they experienced turnovers in leadership and were often either unaware
of events within their department. Communities of practice provide the consistent and
meaningful connections that part-time faculty perceived contributed to a sense of
belonging. Part-time faculty can develop feelings of membership by identifying with
their discipline when they participate and contribute. The communities of practice
also provide part-time faculty with opportunities to learn how they can contribute
within their own disciplines that would provide feelings of ownership and agency. A
community of practice would allow part-time faculty to meet more often, at times
convenient for their schedules, within the department to provide them with feelings of
membership in their departments.
2. The communities of practice allow part-time faculty to develop a better understanding
of their academic cultures and provide opportunities for collaboration and
development. Part-time faculty members who experienced exclusion reported not
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 127
knowing about events or opportunities available through their departments.
Moreover, part-time faculty members were not aware of the culture of their
departments.
3. The communities of practice are spaces for part-time faculty to discuss ways in which
they can collaborate together that supports each other’s instruction and external
professions. A physical space dedicated to part-time faculty would be ideal yet many
higher education institutions do not have the fiscal or human resources as well as the
space to dedicate to such an opportunity. Higher education institutions can consider
creating and encouraging participation in virtual communities of practice. The virtual
communities of practice are low cost and can be spaces for virtual faculty
development workshops and discussions.
4. Lastly, the community of practice can report their collective needs at the end of each
semester or on an annual basis to their department chair in order for the department to
have a better understanding of effective forms of support for part-time faculty. Due to
the lack of communication between the part-time faculty member and individuals
within the department and lack of understanding between the two groups, the
community of practice could facilitate a discussion to bring concerns and needs to the
department.
Implications and Recommendations for Policy
The findings suggested that part-time faculty members were more familiar with the
practices and policies that took place within their departments that contributed to their sense of
belonging and were not or minimally aware of university-wide policies that impacted them. This
is consistent with Kezar (2013) who said non-tenure-track faculty typically have a greater
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 128
understanding of their departments and its characteristics than the broader institutional context.
Part-time faculty members’ views of the institution tended to be negative. Several of the part-
time faculty believed that their universities’ administrations had dismissive or unfavorable views
of part-time faculty, for example, they believed administration viewed them as cheap and
disposable labor. Therefore, due to the lack of connection between the part-time faculty and
administration and the larger institution, the part-time faculty members focused their assessment
of their sense of belonging from a department-level perspective and not from an institution-wide
perspective because they either did not know how administration viewed them or believed
administration viewed them negatively. The data from this study suggested that changes in
policies should be implemented at both the university and department levels in order for faculty
to be accepted as valued members throughout the university community, which will contribute to
a sense of belonging. In order for change to occur across the entire campus, higher education
institutions will be successful if they “fit the change into an organization’s life” (Curry, 1992, p.
27). It is suggested that higher education institutions choose to either limit the number of part-
time faculty hires in order to dedicate worthwhile resources to them or reallocate resources in
order to support part-time faculty members or choose both options if possible. Departments
should also treat part-time faculty members like full-time members and implement the same
policies and practices towards part-time faculty. These recommendations are discussed further
below:
1. First, in order to implement sufficient resources to change academic cultures to view
part-time faculty to be seen as members of their institutions and develop meaningful
relationships, university administrations need to consider limiting the number of part-
time faculty hires or reallocating resources to support part-time faculty members. For
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 129
example, fewer part-time faculty would allow departments to designate individuals in
the department to serve as mentors to the part-time faculty. The departments can
provide incentives, such as course releases or stipends to the full-time faculty, to
serve as mentors to the part-time faculty members. Improved onboarding, designated
liaisons with the department, and communities of practices require time and resources
that could be more feasibly dedicated to a smaller number of part-time faculty. These
actions will most likely lead to higher retention of part-time faculty because concerted
efforts would be dedicated to determining the types of support that would contribute
to their sense of belonging. Kezar (2013) states viewing non-tenure- track faculty
members as individuals instead of a broad, abstract group and understanding how
they perceive supportive and unsupportive practices and policies will lead to the
effective construction of a supportive environment. Either option would allow the
institution to dedicate resources such as mentoring, professional development
opportunities, and social networking opportunities to part-time faculty.
2. Practices and policies need to be implemented that do not limit participation of part-
time faculty members within the academic cultures of their higher education
institutions. The part-time faculty members spoke of their desire to contribute to their
academic cultures but experienced frustration and anger when they did not know how
to or were not invited to do so. Examples of ways in which the part-time faculty
members wanted to contribute included participation in department meetings, voting
privileges, and curriculum planning. Shore et al. (2011) state that creating a
workplace culture where the contributions of all employees are valued and all voices
are heard and appreciated contribute to the employee’s development of a sense of
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 130
belonging. Since the energy and desire for involvement varies with each part-time
faculty members, inclusive practices and policies can at least provide an invitation to
those part-time faculty members who choose to be involved and contribute to their
higher education institution.
Implications and Recommendations for Further Research
Data from this study revealed that part-time faculty are a diverse group who have a
complex and varying understanding of aspects of their academic culture that they perceive
contribute to their sense of belonging. Part-time faculty enter higher education with a range of
motivations, work in various professional careers and teach across disciplines, and experience a
differing academic cultures. In order to understand how higher education institutions can create
academic cultures that contribute to a sense of belonging among such a diverse group, further
studies are needed to explore the perceptions of part-time faculty members and how others
within the academic culture perceive part-time faculty positions in higher education:
1. As stated at the beginning of this study, more qualitative research is needed to
understand how part-time faculty members experience their academic department and
institutions and what aspects contribute a sense of belonging. It is recommended that
future studies recruit part-time faculty by discipline so as that recommendations based
on the findings focus on changes made at the department level. Additionally, studies
can recruit part-time faculty from institutions that have implemented part-time faculty
friendly policies and compare their experiences to that of part-time faculty at
institutions that have not implemented policies and practices supportive of the group.
Research on the perceptions of part-time faculty can inform the decisions made by
higher education institutions to support their part-time faculty.
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 131
2. Further research is also needed on the perceptions of those who supervise part-time
faculty, such as department chairs and faculty liaisons. Since part-time faculty often
have limited interaction with their supervisors and studies have reported that part-
time faculty are often mistakenly viewed as one homogenous group, it would be
beneficial to understand how supervisors perceive part-time faculty in order to know
their assumptions and expectations of these faculty. Studies can specifically explore
what supervisors believe contribute to a supportive academic culture for part-time
faculty members and the challenges they face to contributing to a supportive culture.
Conclusion
This study provided qualitative data on part-time faculty and their perception of aspects
within an academic culture that contribute to a sense of belonging or exclusion, which provided
for implications and recommendations for practice, policy and further research. Findings
suggested that for those working in higher education institutions:
1. An individual, such as a department chair, course lead or full-time faculty member,
serve as a mentor to provide structured and consistent interactions to provide
guidance to the part-time faculty member.
2. Communities of practice are established within departments for part-time faculty
members to connect with one another to share information and determine how to
effectively thrive in their academic cultures.
Findings suggested that those working in higher education administration could implement the
following changes to policies to create academic environments supportive of part-time faculty:
1. Limiting the number of part-time faculty hires or reallocating resources to support
part-time faculty members.
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 132
2. Practices and policies need to be implemented that support participation of part-time
faculty members within the academic cultures of their higher education institutions.
Implications for research suggest that:
1. Further qualitative research is needed to understand how part-time faculty members
experience their academic cultures and what aspects contribute a sense of belonging.
2. Further research is also needed on the perceptions of those who supervise part-time
faculty, such as department chairs and faculty liaisons.
Based on the findings of this study, these implications and recommendations for practice, policy
and research would create academic cultures in which part-time faculty perceive a sense of
belonging.

PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 133
References
Allen, C. (2013, December 22). The highly educated, badly paid, often abused adjunct
professors. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-
oe-allen-adjunct-professors-20131222-story.html
Alvesson, M. (2002). Understanding organizational culture. London, GBR: SAGE Publications
Ltd. (UK).
American Federation of Teachers. (2010). American academic: A national survey of part-
time/adjunct faculty. Washington DC: Author.
Andersson, L. M. (1996). Employee cynicism: An examination using a contract violation
framework. Human Relations, 49(11), 1395-1418.
Baldwin, R. G., & Chronister, J. L. (2001). Teaching without tenure: Policies and practices for a
new era. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Barak, M. E. M. (1999). Beyond affirmative action: Toward a model of diversity and
organizational inclusion. Administration in Social Work, 23(3), 47-68.
Barley, S. R. (1983). Semiotics and the study of occupational and organizational cultures.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 28(3), 393-413.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Chapter 3: Fieldwork. Qualitative research for
education: An introduction to theories and methods (5
th
ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475-482.
Chronister, J. L., Gansneder, B. G., Baldwin, R. G., & Harper, E. P. (2001). Full-time women
faculty off the tenure track: Profile and practice. The Review of Higher Education, 24(3),
237-257.
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 134
Contingent Faculty Positions. (2016, August 2). Retrieved from
https://www.aaup.org/issues/contingency.
Conway, N., & Briner, R. (2005). Understanding psychological contracts at work: A critical
evaluation of theory and research. Oxford: Oxford University.
Corbin, J. M., 1942, & Strauss, A. L. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Curry, B. (1992). Instituting enduring innovations: Achieving continuity of change in higher
education. Washington, DC: ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No.7.
The Delphi Project FAQs. (2017, September 3). Retrieved from
https://www.thechangingfaculty.org
Fredrickson, C. (2015, September 15). There is no excuse for how universities treat adjuncts. The
Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/09/higher-
education-college-adjunct-professor-salary/404461/
Gappa, J. M., & Leslie, D. W. (1993). The invisible faculty: Improving the status of part-timers
in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hagerty, B. M., Williams, R. A., Coyne, J. C., & Early, M. R. (1996). Sense of belonging and
indicators of social and psychological functioning. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 10(4),
235-244.
Harris, S. G. (1994). Organizational culture and individual sensemaking: A schema-based
perspective. Organization Science, 5(3), 309-321.
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 135
Jacobs, K., Perry, I., & MacGillvary, J. (2015, April). The high public cost of low wages. (UC
Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education Research Brief). Retrieved from
http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/pdf/2015/the-high-public-cost-of-low-wages.pdf
Kezar, A., & Sam, C. (2013). Institutionalizing equitable policies and practices for contingent
faculty. The Journal of Higher Education, 84(1), 56-87.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation (Learning
in doing). Cambridge [England]; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lawrence, T. B. & Corwin, V. (2003). Being there: The acceptance and marginalization of part-
time professional employees. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(8), 923-943.
LeCompte, M. D., & Preissle, J., with Tesch, R. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in
educational research. (2
nd
ed.). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Levinson, W., Kaufman, K., & Bickel, J. (1993). Part-time faculty in academic medicine:
Present status and future challenges. Annals of Internal Medicine, 119(3),
220-225.
Maitlis, S. (2005). The social processes of organizational sensemaking. The Academy of
Management Journal, 48(1), 21-49.
Maslow, L.A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3
rd
ed.). Los
Angeles: Sage Publications.
McCarthy, C. (2014, August 22). Adjunct professors fight for crumbs on campus. The
Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/adjunct-
professors-fight-for-crumbs-on-campus/2014/08/22/ca92eb38-28b1-11e4-8593-
da634b334390_story.html
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 136
McClure, J. P., & Brown, J. M. (2008). Belonging at work. Human Resource Development
International, 11(1), 3-17.
Mead, G. H. (1982). The individual and the social self: Unpublished works of George
Herbert Mead. D. Miller (Ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods
sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage.
Morton, D. R. (2012). Adjunct faculty embraced: The institution's responsibility. Christian
Education Journal, 9(2), 396.
Parks, J., Kidder, D., & Gallagher, D. (1998). Fitting square pegs into round holes: Mapping the
domain of contingent work arrangements onto the psychological contract. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 19, 697-730.
Purcell, M. (2007). Skilled, cheap, and desperate: Non-tenure-track faculty and the delusion of
meritocracy. Antipode, 39(1), 121-143.
Ratcliff, J. W. (1983). Notions of validity in qualitative research methodology. Knowledge,
Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 5(2), 147-167.
Reevy, G., & Deason, G. (2014). Predictors of depression, stress, and anxiety among non-tenure
track faculty. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Frontiers in Psychology, 2014, Vol.5.
Roueche, J. E., Roueche, S. D., & Milliron, M. D. (1995). Strangers in their own land:
Part-time faculty in American community colleges. Washington, DC: Community
College Press.
Roueche, J. E., Roueche, S. D., & Milliron, M. D. (1996). Identifying the strangers: Exploring
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 137
part-time faculty integration in American community colleges. Community College
Review, 23(4), 33-48.
Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2(2), 121-139.
Schein, E. H. (2010). The Jossey-Bass business & management series: Organizational culture
and leadership (4
th
ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.
Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. H. (2013). Organizational climate and
culture. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 361-388.
Schuman, R. (2014, March 13). That’s Doctor Instructor to you. Retrieved from
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/education/2014/03/what_should_students_call_their_col
lege_professors.html
Schuster, J. H., & Finkelstein, M. J. (2006). American faculty: The restructuring of academic
work and careers. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Holcombe Ehrhart, K., & Singh, G.
(2011). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future
research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1262-1289.
Socolar, R. R., & Kelman, L. S. (2002). Part-time faculty in academic pediatrics,
medicine, family medicine, and surgery: The views of the chairs. Ambulatory
Pediatrics, 2(5), 406-413.
Townsend, R. B. (2006, March). Federal faculty survey shows gains for history
employment but lagging salaries. Perspectives, 44(3). Retrieved from http://
www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2006/0603new1.cfm
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 138
Wallin, D. L. (2004). Valuing professional colleagues: Adjunct faculty in community and
technical colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 28(4), 373-391.
Wasserman, I. C., Gallegos, P. V., & Ferdman, B. M. (2008). Dancing with resistance:
Leadership challenges in fostering a culture of inclusion. In K. M. Thomas (Ed.),
Diversity resistance in organizations (pp. 175-200). New York: Taylor & Francis
Group/Lawrence Erlbaum.

PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 139
Appendix A: Information Sheet

Information Sheet for Part-time Faculty Participants
A Research Study Investigating the Sense of Belonging of Part-time Faculty at their Higher
Education Institutions
Introduction
I would like to ask your participation in this study in order to have a better understanding of the
sense of belonging that part-time faculty have at the higher education institutions for which they
work.
Why am I doing this project?
I am performing this study to fulfill the doctoral level degree requirements for the University of
Southern California’s educational leadership doctoral program. By interviewing a part-time
faculty member such as yourself, I will receive greater insight into how part-time faculty feel
about their position within their higher education institutions. It may also give further
information on how part-time faculty perceive themselves in relation to their superiors and
colleagues. This research can also benefit administrators and department chairs to adequately and
appropriately support their adjuncts through supportive policies and practices.
What will you have to do if you participate?
Email me stating that you are interested in participating in the study. I will send you a short
questionnaire that you will also email back to me.
1. We will arrange a time to meet that is convenient for you either in-person or
through video chat.
2. There will be one, single interview with myself during which I will ask you
questions. The interview is expected to last an hour to two hours. I will record the
interview.
3. A pseudonym will be used to protect your identity and the recording will be
destroyed after the study is over. When I have completed the study, I would be
more than happy to send you a copy of my dissertation if you are interested.
How much of your time will participation involve?
One interview lasting an hour to two hours.
Will your participation in the project remain confidential?
Yes, a pseudonym will be used and the information about your identity will not be shared with
anyone. Your responses to the questions will only be used for the purposes of this study. You can
be assured that if you take part in this study, you will remain anonymous.
What happens now?
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 140
Please email me at cariryan@usc.edu or call me at (808) 366-6342 if you would like to
participate in the study by December 1, 2016. I can then send you the questionnaire and we can
determine a time to meet for the interview. I would also be happy to answer any questions you
may have.

PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 141
Appendix B: Interview Protocols

PART-TIME INSTRUCTOR INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

FACULTY AT SINGLE INSTITUTION
(Version 10/29/2016)

I. Introduction
Thank you so much for agreeing to participate in this study. I really appreciate that you are
allowing me to interview you. As discussed earlier, the interview will take about an hour to two
hours. Does that still work for your schedule today?
At this time, I would like to ask if you have any questions about the study before we get started.
If you don’t have any more questions and you feel ready, I would like to begin the study.

II. Setting the Stage
I am going to start by asking some questions that will help me to understand your experiences as
a part-time instructor and then the questions will be specifically about the current institution you
are employed at.
1) How long ago did you start teaching as a part-time instructor?
2) What led you to become a part-time instructor?
Prompt: What are the advantages of part-time instruction?
Prompt: What are the challenges of part-time instruction?
3) Has part-time instruction turned out to be what you had expected?
Probe: In what way has it?
Probe: In what way has it not?
4) Talk a little bit about whether you think of yourself as a member of this school’s
faculty?
Probe: (Yes, member) Give examples of recent experiences you had that
demonstrate this idea?
Probe: (No, not a member) Give examples of recent experiences that make you
feel that you are not a member of the school’s faculty.
5) When you walk onto (specify which one) campus, do you believe you belong there?
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 142
Probe: What are the emotions you feel or that get triggered when walking onto
campus?
6) Describe what a typical day of teaching is like for you? Walk me through what your
day looks like.

III. Heart of the Interview
Now, I’m going to turn our attention to your specific role as a part-time instructor. I will begin
with questions about your interactions with your colleagues.
Faculty / Colleague interaction
7) If I was to approach one of your colleagues who is a full-time faculty members, what
would the person say about you an individual (for example, teaching quality,
participation in course construction, committee service)?
Probe: What would they say about you as a member of the department?
8) Under what circumstances do you interact with other members of the faculty?
Probe: Explain those interactions. What prompts those to occur?
Probe: What is it like for you to have those interactions (e.g., find them
useful, want more of them)?
9) Explain the feelings you have towards the faculty you work and interact with.
Probe: What leads you to have those feelings?
Probe: What might generate those feelings?
Probe: How do they play out in your interactions with the faculty you work with?
10) What are things that staff and faculty do and say to you to make you feel like you
belong there?
Probe: Why do you think that specifically makes you feel a sense of belonging?
Probe: What actions or statements make you feel excluded? Why?
11) What king of support have you received in relation to learning what was expected of
you?
Probe: Describe one support in particular of you have benefitted from that support
in place.
Department and University level interaction
Prompt: So far, I have asked your interaction with faculty, now I will ask questions about your
interaction with at the department and university level.
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 143
12) What events and activities do you participate in on campus?
Probe: (If not because of lack of time) Would you like to attend these events if
you did have the time?
Probe: (If not) Why do you choose not to participate in these activities?
Probe: How did you get involved with it/them?
Probe: Were you asked to join it/them?
Probe: Do you enjoy participating in this/these?
Probe: How long have you been participating in it/them?
13) What are the resources available to you on campus as a part-time instructor?
Probe: Which do you use if any?
Probe: (If none) Which do you wish were available?
14) If I were to talk to someone in the university’s administration, what would they say
about part-time faculty?
15) In what ways, if any, does the university distinguish between part-time and full-time
faculty?
Probe: What would be a recent example of that?
Probe: Do these expectations differ between on-campus and online faculty?
Probe: Do these expectations differ among faculty at different life phases?
Note: Let the participants determine what is meant by different life phases.
Listen to the phases the participant discusses. If participant does not
understand question, can say:
Probe: Such as between new faculty and faculty who have been working
for a longer period of time?
Probe: How do these expectations differ between on-campus and online faculty?
16) What are the opportunities that exist based on how long you have worked for an
institution (for example, increased promotion, teaching more of the class you want to
teach?
Probe: Have there been any opportunities since you have been here?
17) If you could change any university policy or policies that affect part-time faculty,
what would it or they be?
18) You may be aware of the national conversation about part-time faculty and their
efforts to unionize for better working conditions. I’m wondering how aware of that you
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 144
are and how you think this particular university treats part-time faculty in relation to the
larger national conversation.

Transition: Now, I will ask questions that will help me to understand how you experience
belonging in your role as a part-time instructor. Please let me know if you would like me to
clarify any question.
19) When you think of the word belonging, what does it mean to you to belong?
If they strictly give a theoretical response, can ask for examples.
Probe: What would that look like? What would be an example of that?
20) I’m wondering if it is important for you to feel like you belong? Tell me a little about
that.
21) What is belonging like where you currently work? Talk about that in relation to your
work here.
Probe: What about in relation to your colleagues?
Probe: And relation to your university?
Probe: Think about recent examples and describe one for me.
22) Who are the people you typically associate with, part-time or full-time faculty?
Probe: What prompts the interactions to occur?
Probe: What is it like for you to have those interactions (e.g., find them useful,
want more of them)?
Probe: Discuss a particular individual on campus who you like to spend time
with?
Probe: (If answer yes) Describe this person and the interactions you have with
them?
Probe: Why do you like to spend time with this person?
Probe: (If answer no) Do you wish there was a person you could call a friend or
confide in?
Probe: (If yes) Describe what you would like your interactions to look like.
Probe: (If no) Why do you think you do not feel the need for social connections
on campus?
Probe: Do you believe these relationships will last into the future? Possibly
beyond your teaching contract’s end date?
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 145
23) Are there unique factors that you require at your current life stage that contributes to
a sense of belonging?
24) Do you believe there are aspects of yourself that help you to fit into the culture of the
department?
Probe: Describe the aspects that prevent you from fitting into the culture of the
department?
25) When you walk through the door to your academic department, what feelings do you
experience?
26) When you walk through the door to your classroom, what feelings do you
experience?
27) Discuss examples of how members of your department show they appreciate the
work you do for the classes you teach.
Probe: How often do they show this type(s) of appreciation?
Probe: How do you react to the appreciation?
28) Have you perceived yourself to be treated differently than other faculty?
Probe: Why do you think you were treated differently?
Probe: How did it make you feel?
29) What do you do when you face a problem here? Describe an example.
Probe: How did it get resolved?
Probe: Was it to your satisfaction when it was resolved or ended?
Probe: Do you think it would have been different for a full-time faculty members?
30) Discuss what you believe are your academic department’s values.
Probe: Do you agree with them?
Probe: Do you act on them?
Probe: If you could change it/them, what would you change it/them to?

IV. Closing Question
31) If you were me, what am I going to leave here now knowing because I am not an
insider in the institution like you?

PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 146
V. Closing
I want to thank you so much for sharing your thoughts with me today! Everything that you share
with me is really useful for my study. I really appreciate your time and willingness to share. If I
have any follow-up questions, would it be all right to contact you, and is an email or a phone call
better? Again, thank you for participating in my study.

PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 147
PART-TIME INSTRUCTOR INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
FACULTY AT MULTIPLE INSTITUTIONS
(Version 10/29/2016)

I. Introduction
Thank you so much for agreeing to participate in this study. I really appreciate that you are
allowing me to interview you. As discussed earlier, the interview will take about an hour to two
hours. Does that still work for your schedule today?
At this time, I would like to ask if you have any questions about the study before we get started.
If you don’t have any more questions and you feel ready, I would like to begin the study.

II. Setting the Stage
I am going to start by asking some questions that will help me to understand your experiences as
a part-time instructor and then the questions will be specifically about the current institution you
are employed at.
1) How long ago did you start teaching as a part-time instructor?
2) What led you to become a part-time instructor?
Prompt: What are the advantages of part-time instruction?
Prompt: What are the challenges of part-time instruction?
3) Has part-time instruction turned out to be what you had expected?
Probe: In what way has it?
Probe: In what way has it not?
4) Talk a little bit about whether you think of yourself as a member of this school’s
faculty?
Probe: (Yes, member) Give examples of recent experiences you had that
demonstrate this idea?
Probe: (No, not a member) Give examples of recent experiences that make you
feel that you are not a member of the school’s faculty.
5) When you walk onto (specify which one) campus, do you believe you belong there?
Probe: What are the emotions you feel or that get triggered when walking onto
campus?
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 148
Probe: How do these emotions at University X differ from other institutions you
teach at?
6) Describe what a typical day of teaching is like for you? Walk me through what your
day looks like.

III. Heart of the Interview
Now, I’m going to turn our attention to your specific role as a part-time instructor. I will begin
with questions about your interactions with your colleagues.
Faculty / Colleague interaction
7) If I was to approach one of your colleagues who is a full-time faculty members, what
would the person say about you an individual (for example, teaching quality,
participation in course construction, committee service)?
Probe: What would they say about you as a member of the department?
8) Under what circumstances do you interact with other members of the faculty?
Probe: Explain those interactions. What prompts those to occur?
Probe: What is it like for you to have those interactions (e.g., find them
useful, want more of them)?
Probe: Describe how your interactions with faculty at X university compare to
previous higher education institutions you have worked for.
9) Explain the feelings you have towards the faculty you work and interact with.
Probe: What leads you to have those feelings?
Probe: What might generate those feelings?
Probe: How do they play out in your interactions with the faculty you work with?
10) What are things that staff and faculty do and say to you to make you feel like you
belong there?
Probe: Why do you think that specifically makes you feel a sense of belonging?
Probe: What actions or statements make you feel excluded? Why?
11) What king of support have you received in relation to learning what was expected of
you?
Probe: Describe one support in particular of you have benefitted from that support
in place.

PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 149
Department and University level interaction
Prompt: So far, I have asked your interaction with faculty, now I will ask questions about your
interaction with at the department and university level.
12) What events and activities do you participate in on campus?
Probe: (If not because of lack of time) Would you like to attend these events if
you did have the time?
Probe: (If not) Why do you choose not to participate in these activities?
Probe: How did you get involved with it/them?
Probe: Were you asked to join it/them?
Probe: Do you enjoy participating in this/these?
Probe: How long have you been participating in it/them?
13) What are the resources available to you on campus as a part-time instructor?
Probe: Which do you use if any?
Probe: (If none) Which do you wish were available?
Probe: How do the resources on this campus compare to resources available to
you at other institutions you have worked for?
14) If I were to talk to someone in the university’s administration, what would they say
about part-time faculty?
15) In what ways, if any, does the university distinguish between part-time and full-time
faculty?
Probe: What would be a recent example of that?
Probe: Do these expectations differ between on-campus and online faculty?
Probe: Do these expectations differ among faculty at different life phases?
Note: Let the participants determine what is meant by different life phases.
Listen to the phases the participant discusses. If participant does not
understand question, can say:
Probe: Such as between new faculty and faculty who have been working
for a longer period of time?
Probe: How do these expectations differ between on-campus and online faculty?
16) What are the opportunities that exist based on how long you have worked for an
institution (for example, increased promotion, teaching more of the class you want to
teach?
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 150
Probe: Have there been any opportunities since you have been here?
17) If you could change any university policy or policies that affect part-time faculty,
what would it or they be?
18) You may be aware of the national conversation about part-time faculty and their
efforts to unionize for better working conditions. I’m wondering how aware of that you
are and how you think this particular university treats part-time faculty in relation to the
larger national conversation.
Transition: Now, I will ask questions that will help me to understand how you experience
belonging in your role as a part-time instructor. Please let me know if you would like me to
clarify any question.
19) When you think of the word belonging, what does it mean to you to belong?
If they strictly give a theoretical response, can ask for examples.
Probe: What would that look like? What would be an example of that?
20) I’m wondering if it is important for you to feel like you belong? Tell me a little about
that.
Probe: How does your sense of belonging at this institution compare to other
institutions you work at or have worked at?
21) What is belonging like where you currently work? Talk about that in relation to your
work here.
Probe: What about in relation to your colleagues?
Probe: And relation to your university?
Probe: Think about recent examples and describe one for me.
22) Now I want to shift gears and ask about experiences with other schools. Do you have
the same sense of belonging at other places you have worked at?
23) Who are the people you typically associate with, part-time or full-time faculty?
Probe: What prompts the interactions to occur?
Probe: What is it like for you to have those interactions (e.g., find them useful,
want more of them)?
Probe: Discuss a particular individual on campus who you like to spend time
with?
Probe: (If answer yes) Describe this person and the interactions you have with
them?
Probe: Why do you like to spend time with this person?
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 151
Probe: (If answer no) Do you wish there was a person you could call a friend or
confide in?
Probe: (If yes) Describe what you would like your interactions to look like.
Probe: (If no) Why do you think you do not feel the need for social connections
on campus?
Probe: Do you believe these relationships will last into the future? Possibly
beyond your teaching contract’s end date?
24) Are there unique factors that you require at your current life stage that contributes to
a sense of belonging?
25) Do you believe there are aspects of yourself that help you to fit into the culture of the
department?
Probe: Describe the aspects that prevent you from fitting into the culture of the
department?
Probe: Have you experienced fitting in very well in past institutions you have
worked for? Why do you think it was so easy for you to fit in in those
departmental cultures?
26) When you walk through the door to your academic department, what feelings do you
experience?
27) When you walk through the door to your classroom, what feelings do you
experience?
28) Discuss examples of how members of your department show they appreciate the
work you do for the classes you teach.
Probe: How often do they show this type(s) of appreciation?
Probe: How do you react to the appreciation?
29) Have you perceived yourself to be treated differently than other faculty?
Probe: Why do you think you were treated differently?
Probe: How did it make you feel?
30) What do you do when you face a problem here? Describe an example.
Probe: How did it get resolved?
Probe: Was it to your satisfaction when it was resolved or ended?
Probe: Do you think it would have been different for a full-time faculty members?
31) Discuss what you believe are your academic department’s values.
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 152
Probe: Do you agree with them?
Probe: Do you act on them?
Probe: If you could change it/them, what would you change it/them to?

IV. Closing Question
32) If you were me, what am I going to leave here now knowing because I am not an
insider in the institution like you?

V. Closing
I want to thank you so much for sharing your thoughts with me today! Everything that you share
with me is really useful for my study. I really appreciate your time and willingness to share. If I
have any follow-up questions, would it be all right to contact you, and is an email or a phone call
better? Again, thank you for participating in my study.

PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 153
PART-TIME INSTRUCTOR INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
ONLINE FACULTY
(Version 10/29/2016)

I. Introduction
Thank you so much for agreeing to participate in this study. I really appreciate that you are
allowing me to interview you. As discussed earlier, the interview will take about an hour to two
hours. Does that still work for your schedule today?
At this time, I would like to ask if you have any questions about the study before we get started.
If you don’t have any more questions and you feel ready, I would like to begin the study.

II. Setting the Stage
I am going to start by asking some questions that will help me to understand your experiences as
a part-time instructor and then the questions will be specifically about the current institution you
are employed at.
1) How long ago did you start teaching as a part-time instructor?
2) What led you to become a part-time instructor?
Prompt: What are the advantages of part-time instruction?
Prompt: What are the challenges of part-time instruction?
3) Has part-time instruction turned out to be what you had expected?
Probe: In what way has it?
Probe: In what way has it not?
4) Talk a little bit about whether you think of yourself as a member of this school’s
faculty?
Probe: (Yes, member) Give examples of recent experiences you had that
demonstrate this idea?
Probe: (No, not a member) Give examples of recent experiences that make you
feel that you are not a member of the school’s faculty.
5) When you walk onto (specify which one) campus, do you believe you belong there?
Probe: What are the emotions you feel or that get triggered when walking onto
campus?
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 154
Probe: (If never visited the campus) Do you believe if you were to visit the
campus, would you feel you belong there and why or why not?
Probe: How do these emotions at University X differ from other institutions you
teach at?
6) Describe what a typical day of teaching is like for you? Walk me through what your
day looks like.
Note: If OF is struggling to answer this question, ask them to focus on: how do
you prepare before logging into your class?, what thoughts and feelings are going
through your mind? what is your class like? What happens after you log-off from
teaching?

III. Heart of the Interview
Now, I’m going to turn our attention to your specific role as a part-time instructor. I will begin
with questions about your interactions with your colleagues.
Faculty / Colleague interaction
7) If I was to approach one of your colleagues who is a full-time faculty members, what
would the person say about you an individual (for example, teaching quality,
participation in course construction, committee service)?
Probe: What would they say about you as a member of the department?
8) Under what circumstances do you interact with other members of the faculty?
Probe: Explain those interactions. What prompts those to occur?
Probe: What is it like for you to have those interactions (e.g., find them
useful, want more of them)?
Probe: Describe how your interactions with faculty at X university compare to
previous higher education institutions you have worked for.
9) Explain the feelings you have towards the faculty you work and interact with.
Probe: What leads you to have those feelings?
Probe: What might generate those feelings?
Probe: How do they play out in your interactions with the faculty you work with?
10) What are things that staff and faculty do and say to you to make you feel like you
belong there?
Probe: Why do you think that specifically makes you feel a sense of belonging?
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 155
Probe: What actions or statements make you feel excluded? Why?
11) What king of support have you received in relation to learning what was expected of
you?
Probe: Describe one support in particular of you have benefitted from that support
in place.
Department and University level interaction
Prompt: So far, I have asked your interaction with faculty, now I will ask questions about your
interaction with at the department and university level.
12) What events and activities do you participate in on campus?
Probe: (If not because of lack of time) Would you like to attend these events if
you did have the time?
Probe: (If not) Why do you choose not to participate in these activities?
Probe: How did you get involved with it/them?
Probe: Were you asked to join it/them?
Probe: Do you enjoy participating in this/these?
Probe: How long have you been participating in it/them?
13) What are the resources available to you on campus as a part-time instructor?
Probe: Which do you use if any?
Probe: (If none) Which do you wish were available?
Probe: How do the resources on this campus compare to resources available to
you at other institutions you have worked for?
14) If I were to talk to someone in the university’s administration, what would they say
about part-time faculty?
15) In what ways, if any, does the university distinguish between part-time and full-time
faculty?
Probe: What would be a recent example of that?
Probe: Do these expectations differ between on-campus and online faculty?
Probe: Do these expectations differ among faculty at different life phases?
Note: Let the participants determine what is meant by different life phases.
Listen to the phases the participant discusses. If participant does not
understand question, can say:
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 156
Probe: Such as between new faculty and faculty who have been working
for a longer period of time?
Probe: How do these expectations differ between on-campus and online faculty?
16) What are the opportunities that exist based on how long you have worked for an
institution (for example, increased promotion, teaching more of the class you want to
teach??
Probe: Have there been any opportunities since you have been here?
17) If you could change any university policy or policies that affect part-time faculty,
what would it or they be?
18) You may be aware of the national conversation about part-time faculty and their
efforts to unionize for better working conditions. I’m wondering how aware of that you
are and how you think this particular university treats part-time faculty in relation to the
larger national conversation.

Transition: Now, I will ask questions that will help me to understand how you experience
belonging in your role as a part-time instructor. Please let me know if you would like me to
clarify any question.
19) When you think of the word belonging, what does it mean to you to belong?
If they strictly give a theoretical response, can ask for examples.
Probe: What would that look like? What would be an example of that?
20) I’m wondering if it is important for you to feel like you belong? Tell me a little about
that.
Probe: How does your sense of belonging at this institution compare to other
institutions you work at or have worked at?
21) What is belonging like where you currently work? Talk about that in relation to your
work here.
Probe: What about in relation to your colleagues?
Probe: And relation to your university?
Probe: Think about recent examples and describe one for me.
22) Now I want to shift gears and ask about experiences with other schools. Do you have
the same sense of belonging at other places you have worked at?
23) Who are the people you typically associate with, part-time or full-time faculty?
Probe: What prompts the interactions to occur?
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 157
Probe: What is it like for you to have those interactions (e.g., find them useful,
want more of them)?
Probe: Discuss a particular individual on campus who you like to spend time
with?
Probe: (If answer yes) Describe this person and the interactions you have with
them?
Probe: Why do you like to spend time with this person?
Probe: (If answer no) Do you wish there was a person you could call a friend or
confide in?
Probe: (If yes) Describe what you would like your interactions to look like.
Probe: (If no) Why do you think you do not feel the need for social connections
on campus?
Probe: Do you believe these relationships will last into the future? Possibly
beyond your teaching contract’s end date?
24) Are there unique factors that you require at your current life stage that contributes to
a sense of belonging?
25) Do you believe there are aspects of yourself that help you to fit into the culture of the
department?
Probe: Describe the aspects that prevent you from fitting into the culture of the
department?
Probe: Have you experienced fitting in very well in past institutions you have
worked for? Why do you think it was so easy for you to fit in in those
departmental cultures?
26) When you walk through the door to your academic department, what feelings do you
experience?
27) When you walk through the door to your classroom, what feelings do you
experience?
28) Discuss examples of how members of your department show they appreciate the
work you do for the classes you teach.
Probe: How often do they show this type(s) of appreciation?
Probe: How do you react to the appreciation?
29) Have you perceived yourself to be treated differently than other faculty?
Probe: Why do you think you were treated differently?
PART-TIME FACULTY BELONGING 158
Probe: How did it make you feel?
30) What do you do when you face a problem here? Describe an example.
Probe: How did it get resolved?
Probe: Was it to your satisfaction when it was resolved or ended?
Probe: Do you think it would have been different for a full-time faculty members?
31) Discuss what you believe are your academic department’s values.
Probe: Do you agree with them?
Probe: Do you act on them?
Probe: If you could change it/them, what would you change it/them to?

IV. Closing Question
32) If you were me, what am I going to leave here now knowing because I am not an
insider in the institution like you?

V. Closing
I want to thank you so much for sharing your thoughts with me today! Everything that you share
with me is really useful for my study. I really appreciate your time and willingness to share. If I
have any follow-up questions, would it be all right to contact you, and is an email or a phone call
better? Again, thank you for participating in my study.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Although part-time faculty positions in higher education continue to increase, reports reveal the lack of acceptance and valuing of part-time faculty across higher education institutions. Yet few qualitative studies exist that explore the experiences and perceptions of part-time faculty within their academic cultures. This qualitative case study specifically investigated part-time faculty members’ perceptions of belonging or exclusion within their higher education institutions. The study was based on interviews with 14 part-time faculty members from two separate higher education institutions who represented a range of years of teaching experience and disciplines. The findings revealed that, in general, part-time faculty perceived a sense of belonging when their socio-emotional needs were met and reciprocal relationships were present within their academic culture. Additionally, part-time faculty who desired and dedicated energy towards involvement in their academic cultures had a sense of belonging.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Perceptions of inclusion: high school students diagnosed with learning disabilities and their level of self-efficacy

PDF

Latinx commuter students who have persisted and their sense of belonging

PDF

Teachers' perceptions of the epistemic interface between indigeneity and technology in the Cook Islands

PDF

Faculty experiences: sense of belonging for sexual and gender minority college students

PDF

Cross-cultural adjustment: examining how involvement in service-learning contributes to the adjustment experiences of undergraduate international students

PDF

Perspectives of Native American community college students

PDF

Understanding indigenous ʻike: the impact on sense of belonging and local identity on Hawaiʻi’s students

PDF

“Black” workplace belonging: an examination of the lived experiences of Black faculty sense of belonging factors in community colleges

PDF

Ma ka hana ka ike perpetuating excellence in Native Hawaiian education: Native Hawaiian Education Council members' approaches to supporting the needs of Native Hawaiians

PDF

The perceived barriers of nursing faculty presence in an asynchronous online learning environment: a case study

PDF

Representation matters: the ways in which African American faculty support African American students in higher education

PDF

An academic and professional preparatory curriculum design and supplemental academic advisement tool: self-regulation, ethics, and communication for engineering graduate students

PDF

Belonging: interplay of race and sexuality with Black gay undergraduate male students

PDF

Examining how faculty educators believed they supported faculty in higher education institutions

PDF

Experience of belonging for full-time hybrid physical therapy faculty

PDF

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

PDF

Undocumented students' personal reflections on the role institutional agents play in providing social capital towards post-secondary education

PDF

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

PDF

Perceptions of campus racial climate and sense of belonging at faith-based institutions: differences by ethnicity, religiosity, and faith fit

PDF

Campus change agents: examining the experiences of cultural center scholar practitioners at a predominantly White institution

Asset Metadata

Creator Ryan, Cari Anne (author)

Core Title Part-time faculty and their sense of belonging

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 11/27/2017

Defense Date 09/29/2017

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

Tag belonging,OAI-PMH Harvest,part-time faculty

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Slayton, Julie (committee chair), Samkian, Artineh (committee member), Tambascia, Tracy (committee member)

Creator Email cariryan@usc.edu,cbelczak@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-459252

Unique identifier UC11267942

Identifier etd-RyanCariAn-5934.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-459252 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-RyanCariAn-5934.pdf

Dmrecord 459252

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Ryan, Cari Anne

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