University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

PARTICIPATION OF FULL-TIME, NON-TENURE-TRACK FACULTY IN
SCHOOL-LEVEL GOVERNANCE AND DECISION MAKING

by

Annette Marie Pijuán

________________________________________________________________________

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

August 2012

Copyright 2012 Annette Marie Pijuán

ii
DEDICATION

I dedicate this dissertation to my family, especially my late grandparents, Mima
and Pipo, and my parents, Sonia and Alex. I am forever inspired by their hard work,
determination, perseverance, and unconditional love.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I owe many thanks to a wonderful group of people who have made the work on
this dissertation possible. I would like to first express my gratitude to the chair of my
dissertation committee, Adrianna Kezar. Dr. Kezar offered continuous support,
enthusiasm, and guidance. She urged me on in the most difficult times and challenged
me to exceed my highest expectations, which I truly appreciate. I would also like to
extend many thanks to my committee members, Dr. Estela Bensimon for her insight,
encouraging words, and dedication, and Dr. Irene Oliver for her constant encouragement,
mentoring, and feedback.
I would like to thank my family for always believing in me and keeping me
motivated through this journey. Words cannot express how grateful and blessed I am to
have each and every one of you in my life. I could not have done this without you! I
thank my mom, Sonia, and my dad, Alejandro, for your constant words of
encouragement, guidance, support, patience, and love. At long last, I have chiseled my
masterpiece! To my brother, Alex, and sister-in-law, Sara, thank you for always
listening, sharing your optimism, and spending quality time together when I needed the
distraction most. Thank you for being my second set of eyes and the best graphic
designers ever! To my love, Edgar, thank you for your unconditional love, never-ending
patience, and constant understanding. You always know how to make me laugh and
forget my worries. Panera will not be the same without us! I would also like to thank my
guardian angels, my grandparents, Mima and Pipo, for watching over me and guiding me
on this journey. You continue to be my inspiration.

iv
To my fellow Ed.D. colleagues, thank you for your support throughout our entire
journey. A special thanks goes to Cecilia Santiago and Paul Jimenez for your friendship
and dedication. Our weekend study sessions made all the difference. Fight On!
Lastly, I would like to thank the participants in this study for offering their time
and sharing their experiences with me. I appreciate your thoughtfulness.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables viii
List of Figures ix
Abstract x
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 1
Background of the Problem 3
Statement of the Problem 8
Purpose of the Study 11
Importance of the Study 12
Definition of Terms 14
Organization of the Dissertation 16
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 17
Shared Governance: A Participatory Decision-Making Process 18
Participatory Decision-Making Processes 23
Leadership 25
Shared Responsibility and Values 27
Relationships, Respect, and Trust 28
A Team Approach to Decision Making 31
Effects of the Inclusion of Marginalized Groups on Decision-Making Processes 35
Cognitive Complexity 36
Trust and Respect Lead to Commitment and Motivation 39
Communication 41
Collaboration 42
Collegiality 43
Job Satisfaction and Performance 45
Challenges Posed for Shared Governance 47
Faculty Resistance 48
Academic Freedom 48
The Bifurcated Workforce 50
Self-exclusion 51
Institutional Pressures 52
Conclusion 53

vi
Chapter Three: Methodology 55
Rationale for the Case Study Design 56
Site Selection 61
Participants 64
Data Collection 69
Data Analysis 72
Role of the Researcher 74
Limitations of the Study 76
Trustworthiness 77
Conclusion 79
Chapter Four: The Findings 81
Chapter Overview 81
Inclusive Practices University 82
Institutional Structures 83
Governance Practices 84
Faculty Structures 88
A Participatory Environment 91
Transforming Institutional Practices 92
Findings by Research Question 98
Perceptions of Participation in Decision Making 99
Importance of the Leadership Role 100
Builds Relationships and Promotes Shared Responsibility 104
Collaboration and Contribution in Decision Making 105
Gaining a Better Understanding of Each Other as well as the Process 111
Full-Time, Non-Tenure-Track Faculty Feel Committed and Invested 113
Participation Can Lead to Frustration and Disenfranchisement 115
Participation in Decision Making and Organizational Dynamics 118
Participation Builds Knowledge Capacity and Influences Decision Making 119
Improved Organizational Dynamics 124
Respect 126
Communication, Collaboration, and Collegiality 127
Traditional Systems of Governance are “Archaic” 131
Summary of the Findings 134
Chapter Summary 138
Chapter Five: Discussion, Implications, and Recommendations 139
Summary of the Study 139
Review of the Findings 140
Full-Time, Non-Tenure-Track Faculty Perceptions 140
Participation in Decision Making and Organizational Dynamics 145
Discussion of Findings 149
Implications for Practice 160

vii
Recommendations for Future Research 167
Conclusion 171
References 173
Appendices
Appendix A: Referral Request Email 186
Appendix B: Solicitation of Participants 187
Appendix C: Information/Facts Sheet for Non-Medical Research 189
Appendix D: Interview Protocol for Participant Interviews - Leaders 191
Appendix E: Interview Protocol for Participant Interviews – Tenured and
Tenure-Track Faculty 193
Appendix F: Interview Protocol for Participant Interviews – Full-time,
Non-Tenure-Track Faculty 195
Appendix G: Document Analysis Form 197

viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Participant Institutional Affiliations 68
Table 2: University Policy and Practice Committees at Inclusive Practices
University 87
Table 3: Faculty Eligibility to Participate in Governance and Faculty Senate
Committees 91

ix
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Full-time faculty composition of IPU from 2005-2010 63
Figure 2: Faculty composition of Department of Education and English 65
Figure 3: Institutional context present at Inclusive Practices University 97
Figure 4: Elements that influence building relationships and shared responsibility 105
Figure 5: Diagram of study findings reflecting the perceived outcomes of the
participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in governance and
decision making 137

Figure 6: Diagram of study findings reflecting the perceived outcomes of the
participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in governance and
decision making 148

x
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this qualitative study was to develop an understanding of the
perceptions of various stakeholders regarding the inclusion and participation of full-time,
non-tenure-track faculty in shared governance and decision-making. This study aimed to
understand the experiences and perceptions of full-time non-tenure-track faculty and their
participation in decision-making. In addition, the study also sought to identify how
various stakeholders perceive the participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty
influences organizational dynamics.
This case study explored a private, medium-sized, comprehensive institution
where full-time, non-tenure-track faculty participates in governance and decision-making
at the institutional, academic, and departmental level. The modified governance practices
of the institution were examined to develop an understanding of how inclusion and
participation of this faculty group might influence the capacity for decision-making as
well as influence organizational dynamics. Although governance and decision-making
occur across various levels of the institution, the focus for this study was at the academic
college and departmental level.
In this case study, data was collected through document analysis and semi-
structured participant interviews. Findings from this study indicate that the participation
of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in governance and decision-making influence
various stakeholders, their department, and their academic unit, as well as on the
institution. It also became evident that elements that promote the participation of full-
time, non-tenure-track faculty in governance and decision-making, such as leadership,

xi
development of shared responsibility and values, and generation of multiple and diverse
perspectives, were strengthened within the participatory decision-making process. Taken
together, these elements can lead to strategic actions that an institution, its administrators,
and its faculty could take to improve their academic working environments, enhance
meaningfulness and commitment for faculty, and strengthen institutional excellence.
This study is significant in that it recognizes full-time, non-tenure-track faculty as
a distinct group within institutions of higher education. It provides a contribution to the
scarcity of literature available regarding the participation of full-time, non-tenure-track
faculty in the shared governance and decision-making process and the influence that
participation could have on the institution, its individual members, and the overall
academic community. As this is a growing faculty group within institutions of higher
education, it was important to understand ways in which they could further contribute to
an institution as well as how their contribution and participation affects the organization.

1
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Colleges and universities are in the midst of rapid change in response to
environmental, social, economic, technological, and political transformations and, as
such, face numerous challenges. To address these challenges, schools are continually
developing strategies and decision-making processes (Hanna, 2003; Kezar, 2004).
Structures within higher education, such as shared governance, provide the platform for
this decision making and for policy development that addresses the changing dynamics
and challenges that face higher education.
In many colleges and universities, shared governance has been a tradition for
several decades. Shared governance is defined as a formally recognized set of practices
under which administration and college faculty participate in significant decisions that
affect the entire institution’s operation, or one or more components thereof; it requires
delegation of authority to each stakeholder to make decisions appropriate to its
responsibility (American Federation of Teachers [AFT], 2006; Kezar, 2004; Scott, 2002).
It plays a central role in the success of American higher education by providing a
structure for academic employees with training and experience in curriculum, teaching,
research, and student services to be primary decision makers in their areas of expertise
(American Association of University Professors [AAUP], 1966; AFT, 2002; Association
of Governing Boards [AGB], 2010). To be effective and sustainable, shared governance
strategies and processes might be developed in an environment that offers openness as
well as opportunities for reflection and action by all members of the academic
community (Hanna, 2003).

2
Researchers recommend shared decision making as a key strategy to improve
productivity in all kinds of organizations (AFT, 2006; Baldwin & Chronister, 2001;
Birnbaum, 1988; Gappa, Austin, & Trice, 2007; Kezar, 2004; Kezar & Eckel, 2004;
Kezar, Lester, & Anderson, 2006; Minor, 2004). Specifically, broad participation in
decision making increases the capacity for decision making and improves institutional
effectiveness (Birnbaum, 1988; Floyd, 1994; Minor, 2004). As such, professional
organizations such as AFT, AAUP, and the National Education Association (NEA)
support the participation of varying faculty appointment types in shared governance of an
institution.
Despite such recommendations for broad participation and collaborative decision
making, shared governance structures traditionally ignore opportunities to include the
participation of nontraditional faculty members, who consist of full-time, non-tenure-
track and part-time faculty. These nontraditional faculty members have become the
largest faculty group within the academic workforce and comprise 65% of all faculty
appointments in American higher education (AAUP, 2006). Full-time, non-tenure-track,
and part-time faculty have been a part of the fabric of U.S. colleges and universities for
well over a century (Thedwall, 2008).
These faculty members have valuable expertise, teach large numbers of students,
and understand the learning contexts of the institution (Baldwin & Chronister, 2001;
Kezar, Lester et al., 2006). Nevertheless, despite their contribution and long-standing
history in institutions of higher education, non-tenure eligible faculty members are
typically excluded or have minimal participation at any level of governance and decision

3
making (Baldwin & Chronister, 2001). When their influence is denied a place in decision
making, the institution and its students may suffer (AFT, 2006).
Because of the diversity that exists among universities, practices differ across
institutions, and it is not possible to prescribe a one-size-fits-all model for governance
(Gaff, 2007; Minor, 2003). Notably, among some institutions, full-time, non-tenure-track
faculty participate in governance and decision making. Understanding the process by
which these institutions include these faculty members and their potential impact on the
institution can be used to inform future practice and policy.
The effects of inclusion of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in academic
governance has not received sufficient attention in the literature. As such, this
dissertation adds to the literature on the inclusion of nontraditional faculty, specifically
full-time, non-tenure-track faculty, in shared governance and decision making. The full-
time, non-tenure-track faculty are involved and invested in the day-to-day operations of
an institution and have an understanding of the varying aspects of an institution’s life and
culture that part-time faculty do not have. Few studies have been conducted; and, as a
result, research is limited. This study will address that gap and attempt to provide
direction on the subject.
Background of the Problem
Many academic institutions operate under a system of shared governance
1
that
appropriately shares responsibility and cooperative action between various stakeholders
and among the numerous components within an institution (AAUP, 1966; Ehrenberg,

1
A wide range of governance models exists across two- and four-year institutions.

4
2000). Shared governance can be understood as a process that ensures shared
responsibility for decision making among the professoriate (Baldwin & Chronister, 2001;
Eckel & Kezar, 2006; El-Khawas, 1995; Tierney & Minor, 2003; Trakman, 2008).
Jenkins and Jensen (2010) view it as a collegial model or “a community of scholars, with
consensual decision making processes involving all constituencies affected by the
decisions” (p. 3). Governance includes the processes and individuals involved in making
institutional, school-level, departmental, and programmatic decisions within a college or
university (Anderson, 2007). Shared governance requires a commitment to the principle
of collegiality and should promote academic justice and excellence (NEA, 1989a).
Governance practices will differ from campus to campus. However, elected
faculty committees that work with the administration typically assume the work of shared
governance (AFT, 2006). As such, faculty plays a crucial role in shared governance.
Institutional policies, processes, and structures rely heavily, if not exclusively, on the
participation of tenured and tenure-track faculty to make decisions, set policies, and
create or modify procedures. Kezar, Lester et al. (2006) noted, “Traditionally, only
tenured and tenure-track faculty work with upper-level administration to design policy
and create strategic initiatives through governance processes” (p. 121).
Over the past several decades, there has been a dramatic shift in the academic
workforce of institutions of higher education. While tenure was the ideal prototype for a
professor’s career in the 1940s, the number of tenured and tenure-track faculty
appointments has seen a continuous decline. Since that same period, the number of
faculty members across American institutions of higher education has increased

5
dramatically, from 146,929 in 1940 to 1,138,734 in 2003, a 675% increase (Gappa &
Trice, 2011). Despite this increase, by 2003 only 24% of all faculty were tenured and
only 11% were on the tenure track (AAUP, 2006). Notably, the number of nontraditional
faculty, specifically, full-time, non-tenure-track and part-time faculty, has seen the most
significant increase, particularly in the early 1990s (Kezar & Sam, 2010). By 1993, full-
time, non-tenure-track faculty comprised the majority of full-time faculty hires. By 2003,
65% of the faculty occupied a nontraditional faculty position (AAUP, 2006; Gappa &
Trice, 2011), and full-time, non-tenure-track faculty comprised 34.8% (Kezar & Sam,
2010).
Despite the shift in the composition of the academic workforce, there has been
little change in institutional policies, processes, and structures to reflect the change in
faculty makeup. Although full-time, non-tenure-track, and part-time faculty comprise
more than half of the academic workforce, there is no systematic policy for their
inclusion in shared governance or decision making (Kezar, Lester et al., 2006; Morrison,
2008). With the decline of tenure-track faculty, who are traditionally called upon to
design policy, established governance structures, processes, and standards might be
reevaluated and restructured if the quality of higher education is to be sustained. NEA
(2002) noted that a decline in participation or decision-making power seriously threatens
the quality of higher education institutions.
Inclusion and participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in shared
governance has been met with apprehension among administrators, tenured, tenure-track,
and full-time, non-tenure-track faculty alike. Concerns include whether full-time, non-

6
tenure-track faculty would be critical of the administration and whether they truly
understand what it means to be a faculty member (Kezar, Lester et al., 2006).
Of primary concern across all groups is the lack of academic freedom for non-
tenure-track faculty. Full-time, non-tenure-track faculty’s lack of protection, typically
gained through securing tenure, could result in their avoiding the risk associated with
supporting an unpopular administrative decision or faculty initiative (Kezar, Lester et al.,
2006; Morrison, 2008). Voting against a policy backed by tenured or tenure-track faculty
or taking a public stance on a sensitive issue could be detrimental and precarious for their
career (Kezar et al., 2006c; Morrison, 2008).
As faculty members who hold non-permanent appointments, non-tenure-track
faculty can be perceived by tenured and tenure-track faculty and administrators as
temporary employees who lack the commitment and morale of tenured and tenure-track
faculty. This purposeful exclusion can be regarded as an effort to perpetuate an “us-
versus-them” environment, where non-tenure-track faculty members are deemed
ineligible to participate and contribute within the overall academic community. As a
result, many non-tenure-track faculty are considered by tenure-track faculty and by
themselves to be second-class citizens, whether by custom or by rule (Harper, Baldwin,
Gansneder, & Chronister, 2001).
Administrators might establish an environment in which individual freedom of
expression and mutual respect are valued. Emerging perspectives on effective
governance identify leadership as key to fostering such an environment. Leadership
plays a vital role in shared governance, as leaders are in a prime position to implement

7
those processes that build relationships between administration and faculty. Effective
governance depends on individuals’ feeling respect and trust for one another, which
enables them to share their insights and ideas (Gappa et al., 2007; Kezar, 2004; Miller &
Katz, 2004; Morrison, 2008).
Institutions might consider implementing policies that encourage participation in
faculty governance at all levels. Among the expected outcomes of full participation are
increases in institutional commitment and higher morale for non-tenure-track faculty
(Bland, Center, Finstad, & Risbey, 2006) as well as improved collaboration among
tenured, tenure-track, and non-tenure-track faculty (Morrison, 2008). As noted by Gappa
et al. (2007), collegiality within the academic community becomes more important as
faculty demographics and appointment types become more diverse.
Professional organizations, including AFT, NEA, and AAUP, promote an
institution’s inclusion of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in shared governance.
During the past century, each of these organizations, specifically AAUP, has established
policies on academic freedom, tenure, and shared governance as mutually reinforcing
pillars of the collegiate superstructure (AFT, 2007). It is a priority of the AFT to ensure
that all college and university employees, full-time tenured, tenure-track, and non-tenure-
track faculty, are guaranteed a voice in decision making and a role in shaping policy in
their areas of expertise (AFT, 2002).
Governance structures rely on tenured faculty for decision-making, policies, and
procedures. With the decline in tenure and the dramatic increase in full-time, non-tenure-
track faculty, there will be less faculty ‘eligible’ to make decisions and take leadership

8
roles, as are outlined in current shared governance structures (Curtis & Jacobe, 2006).
Who then will be given the responsibility and authority to make the decisions that fall
under the jurisdiction of full-time, tenured and tenure-track faculty? Gappa and Trice
(2011) note that institutions could seek ways to make faculty work attractive to those on
and off the tenure track, which is no longer sufficiently broad or flexible to accommodate
the academy’s diverse workforce.
Statement of the Problem
Policies that exclude the participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in
shared governance practices not only underscore the class distinctions among faculty
members, they also discourage future involvement in upper levels of governance
(Morrison, 2008). With the growing number of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty,
relationships between these faculty members and tenured or tenure-track faculty can be
strained over issues of shared governance and social status (Jaschik, 2006; Kezar, Lester
et al., 2006). Thus, institutions need to consider changing their policies to include such
faculty. However, there is little research on the effects of inclusion of full-time, non-
tenure-track faculty in shared governance and its impact on the academic workforce and
the organization. Further, there is limited evidence of whether a change in policy to
include this faculty group would make a difference in academic governance and decision
making. Without such knowledge, institutions may not feel obligated to change their
policies.
Although full-time, non-tenure-track faculty members are hired for primarily
teaching functions (Baldwin & Chronister, 2001; Kezar et al., 2006c), they are still not

9
invited to conversations regarding curriculum or issues related to teaching and learning
(Curtis & Jacobe, 2006). Their exclusion from the decision making process can cripple
the system and might not allow for the best and most comprehensive gathering of
informative decision making. When full-time, non-tenure-track faculty members are
excluded from decision-making they cannot participate in shared governance
opportunities that characterize the academic career (Gappa & Trice, 2011). In addition, if
trends in the academic workforce continue, there will be fewer tenured and tenure-track
faculty members to oversee the development and coherence of curriculum or issues
related to teaching and learning (Curtis & Jacobe, 2006). When full-time, non-tenure-
track faculty members are invited to participate and given a voice in decision making,
they can feel more connected to and valued by the institution and they are positioned to
contribute more meaningfully as well (Gappa et al., 2007; Gappa & Trice, 2011).
Institutions might consider implementing policies that encourage full participation
of faculty in shared governance at all levels for two reasons (Morrison, 2008). First, the
number of full-time, non-tenure-track appointments has been increasing across higher
education. Second, studies of institutional effectiveness suggest that faculty are most
effective in their roles when their morale is high. Morale is higher at institutions where
faculty plays a major role in shared governance and has confidence in the system to
produce results (NEA, 1989a).
Research suggests that shared governance structures work best where professional
work and identity are most strongly supported and valued (Bland et. al, 2006). Respect is
one of the most important principles among the diverse faculty workforce within higher

10
education. Colleges and universities could find ways to ensure that every faculty
member, regardless of appointment type, feels welcomed and respected. Respect also
means cultivating a culture of inclusion (Gappa et al., 2007). By including all full-time
faculty members in shared governance and implementing policies, structures, and
practices that present opportunities for them to participate in roles that are appropriate to
their experiences and appointment types, colleges and universities can ensure that each
faculty member is a fully participating member of the academic community (Gappa &
Trice, 2011).
Modifying shared governance policies, practices, and structures to include this
growing group of non-tenure faculty, appears to be a greater effort in true shared
governance than current structures. Most current structures within colleges and
universities are organized to allow only tenured and tenure-track faculty to participate
and contribute to conversations and decisions affecting the institution. This is not only
problematic as current practices ignore one of the fastest growing populations within the
academic workforce, but because it also creates a bifurcated environment across faculty
appointment types. As such, leadership will be vital in building relationships that can
establish and develop trust as well as respect among administrators and all faculty
members. The implications of true, shared governance and the development of these
principles have the potential to promote confidence, commitment and morale across the
entire academic community as well as increase institutional effectiveness. The
effectiveness of shared governance systems depends on the active participation of all key
players in the academic community. Institutions of higher education that employ full-

11
time, non-tenure-track faculty members should facilitate and reinforce the governance
involvement of these important members of the academic community (Baldwin &
Chronister, 2001).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this qualitative study was to develop an understanding of the
perceptions of various stakeholders regarding the inclusion and participation of full-time,
non-tenure-track faculty in shared governance and decision-making. This study aimed to
understand the experiences and perceptions of full-time non-tenure-track faculty and their
participation in decision-making. In addition, the study also sought to identify how
various stakeholders perceive the participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty
influences organizational dynamics.
This study explored an inclusive institution where full-time, non-tenure-track
faculty participates in governance and decision-making at the institutional, academic, and
departmental level. The modified governance practices of the institution were examined
to develop an understanding of how inclusion and participation of this faculty group
might influence the capacity for decision-making as well as influence organizational
dynamics. Although governance and decision-making occur across various levels of the
institutions, the focus for this study was at the academic college and departmental level.
Since academic departments are the most important venue for shared decision making
(Tierney & Minor, 2003), they, and the academic units in which they reside, become the
focal place for shared governance. The following research questions guided this study:

12
1. What are the perceptions of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty of their
participation in School-level decision-making?
2. How do various stakeholders in a School perceive the participation of full-
time, non-tenure-track faculty in School-level decision-making affects
organizational dynamics?
For the purpose of this study, the focus was solely on full-time, non-tenure-track faculty.
A majority of the research on non-tenure faculty collectively discusses both full-time and
part-time faculty appointments as though one in the same. To combine these differing
faculty appointment types into a single analysis is likely to provide less clarity than
accuracy (Schuster & Finkelstein, 2006). As noted by Kezar and Sam (2010), “Only by
examining and disaggregating non-tenure-track faculty into subgroups can we truly
understand their satisfaction, experience, and potentially their impact on higher
education” (p. 11). Full-time, non-tenure-track faculty are involved and invested in the
day-to-day operations of an institution, despite varying contractual commitments. They
are present and work within the daily routines of a department, college, and the overall
institution. Full-time, non-tenure-track faculty have a ‘pulse’ for the ‘goings-on’ within
an institution, aspects of an institution’s life and culture that part-time faculty more than
likely do not have the opportunity to partake in.
Importance of the Study
This study recognizes full-time, non-tenure-track faculty as a distinct group
within institutions of higher education. Since the number of full-time, non-tenure-track
faculty are increasing in higher education, understanding their perceptions regarding the

13
context in which they work is critical. The study also examines the perceptions held by
various stakeholders concerning the participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in
governance and decision-making. The potential influence their participation, in
otherwise exclusionary policies and practices, might have on the decision-making process
as well as organizational dynamics was explored. Responses yield important insights
into what ensues and transpires when full-time, non-tenure-track faculty participate in
shared governance and decision-making. Responses also provide information on the
potential impact inclusion might have on faculty commitment, respect, communication,
collaboration, and collegiality.
One of the most significant impacts on effective governance is attributed to
leadership. Leadership facilitates effectiveness by providing a sense of direction,
priority, advancement toward an outcome, and building relationships through
collaboration. This study explored the potential influence leadership could have on the
development and redesign of shared governance practices to include participation,
collaboration, and contribution across all full-time faculty appointment types. Although
structures and processes are necessary for effective practice, the role of leadership in
building relationships and cultivating an environment of trust was explored.
Institutions of higher education are facing a myriad of social and economic
challenges in a rapid changing environment. Administrators, tenured, and tenure-track
faculty can use the results as they seek to modify governance practices that respond to the
growing number of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty. Responses provide important
insights into how the various stakeholders perceive the inclusive governance policies and

14
practices increase the capacity for decision-making, improve decision-making, and
develop organizational elements that promote interpersonal dynamics among the
academic community. In addition, results reveal implications for increasing the
transparency of decision-making and full-time, non-tenure-track participation in the
formulation of policies and practices. Lastly, results supports and recognize full-time,
non-tenure-track faculty members as a knowledgeable group of individuals that can
contribute meaningfully to discussions and decisions regarding the department, academic
unit, and overall institution. These attributes could potentially improve the effectiveness
of governance practices, overall institutional efficiency, and create a unified and un-
bifurcated workforce. Efficiency in decision-making would place institutions in a better
position to respond to the rapid changing environment and challenges they face.
Definition of Terms
The following definition of terms provide an understanding of the language used
throughout this dissertation.
Academic freedom provides the liberty for those with disciplinary credentials
grounded in their scholarly expertise to express their ideas freely, however critical,
without fear of consequence or repercussion; to call established beliefs into question; and
to engage in new areas of scholarly inquiry, regardless whether doing so means
challenging accepted norms (Scott, 2002).
Broad participation is the involvement of non-traditional faculty, specifically full-
time, non-tenure-track faculty, in discussions and recognized practices.

15
Full-time, non-tenure-track faculty refers to members of the faculty with full-
time, non-permanent appointments. Appointments are on a contractual basis (e.g.,
quarter, semester, one year, two years) as defined by the institution (AFT, 2006).
Full-time, tenured faculty refers to full-time permanent faculty who hold a tenure
position as defined by the institution (AFT, 2006).
Full-time, tenure-track faculty refers to full-time permanent faculty in positions in
which they may become eligible for tenure, as defined by the institution (AFT, 2006).
Inclusion refers to the act of providing an environment that presents the
opportunity and ability for participation, contribution, and action by members of a
community.
Nontraditional faculty is a collective term that refers to full-time, non-tenure-track
and part-time faculty, both of whom hold temporary contracts within an institution.
Organizational dynamics concerns how individuals in an organization behave and
react to each other as well as how the organization can be made to work more effectively
(“Organizational dynamics,” 2011).
Participatory decision making is a democratic practice in organizational
management whereby a group makes a choice or judgment about something after
collecting, sharing, and gathering significant ideas from different sources (Hashim, Alam,
& Siraj, 2010).
Part-time faculty refers to members of the faculty with part-time, non-permanent
appointments. Appointments are on a contractual basis, typically, per quarter or
semester.

16
Shared governance is a formally recognized set of practices under which
administration and college faculty participate in significant decisions affecting the entire
institution’s operation or one or more components thereof; it requires delegation of
authority to each stakeholder to make decisions appropriate to its responsibility (AFT,
2006; Kezar, 2004; Scott, 2002).
Organization of the Dissertation
This chapter provided an introduction to the study, including its purpose and
significance to the field. Chapter Two presents a review of the literature relevant to the
study. Chapter Three contains the methodology used in this qualitative study and
includes the participants and process for data collection and analysis. Chapter Four
presents the findings, and Chapter Five provides a synthesis of the findings,
recommendations for practice and future research as well as concluding thoughts.

17
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Traditionally, the academic profession has emphasized shared responsibility for
decisions as critical for the sustainability and success of a college or university and its
faculty members (Eckel & Kezar, 2006; Ehrenberg, 2000; El-Khawas, 1995; Gappa et al.,
2007). This chapter contains the literature on the benefits and potential challenges of
including non-tenure-track faculty in academic governance. The chapter begins with the
research on shared governance as a participatory decision-making process as well the
problems that ensue when full-time, non-tenure-track faculty are not invited to participate
in a decision-making body. This is followed by the literature on factors that promote the
participatory decision-making process. A framework that captures these factors–a team
approach to decision-making–is presented. Next, the effects of participation of a
marginalized group in decision making are discussed. Lastly, an overview of the
challenges that arise when marginalized groups are included in participatory decision
making is provided.
For the purpose of this study, the focus will be solely on full-time, non-tenure-
track faculty. Although full-time, non-tenure-track faculty members do not comprise the
majority of the non-tenure-track faculty group, they have the most dedicated time. Full-
time, non-tenure-track faculty are involved and invested in the day-to-day operations of
an institution. They have the most significant influence on the daily functions of an
institution, academic college, and department. For these reasons, full-time, non-tenure-
track faculty were the focus for this study.

18
Shared Governance: A Participatory Decision-Making Process
Shared governance has become a hallmark of American colleges and universities
for decades (Baldwin & Chronister, 2001; Eckel & Kezar, 2006; El-Khawas, 1995;
Tierney & Minor, 2003; Trakman, 2008). The concept of shared governance came of age
in the 1960s, when colleges and universities began to liberalize many of their processes,
specifically shared responsibility for decision making. In 1966, ACE, AGB, and AAUP
issued their joint Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities, which codified
the tradition of shared responsibility for decision making. The Statement asserts, “The
variety and complexity of tasks performed by institutions of higher education produce an
inescapable interdependence among governing boards, administration, [and] faculty”
(AAUP, 2001, p. 218). Although not intended to serve as a one-size-fits-all design for
institutional decision making, the Statement outlines roles for governing boards,
administration and faculty in governance decisions (Center for Collaborative Policy,
2008; Eckel & Kezar, 2006; Ehrenberg, 2000). The Statement is commonly cited when a
discussion concerns issues related to governance in higher education.
Shared governance is highly valued and considered an important part of an
institution’s values and identity (Tierney & Minor, 2003) as it demonstrates the
commitment to freedom of ideas, the professionalization of faculty, and the importance of
deliberative decision making (Kezar, Lester et al., 2006). It has continuously evolved to
include increasing representation in the decision-making processes (Olson, 2009).
Over 90% of institutions of higher education in the United States follow some
variation of traditional governance (El-Khawas, 1995; Minor, 2004; Tierney & Minor,

19
2003). However, colleges and universities vary in their models, practices, and
philosophies regarding shared governance (Ehrenberg, 2000; Eckel & Kezar, 2006;
Center for Collaborative Policy, 2008; Tierney & Minor, 2003). This variance in
ideology can often bring the system of shared governance under scrutiny (Dimond, 1991;
El-Khawas, 1995; Hoppe & Speck, 2004). Two national studies conducted in the 1990s
suggest that campus governance was wholly ineffective and inefficient because of its
structure and processes (Benjamin & Carroll, 1998; Dimond, 1991). Results from the
studies found that 70% of campus faculty and administrators noted that new approaches
to decision-making processes needed to be considered, as the current practices were
ineffective. It has since been noted that shared governance strategies and processes might
be best developed in an environment offering openness and opportunities for
participation and action by all members of the academic community (AFT, 2006; Gappa
et al., 2007; Gappa & Trice, 2011; Hanna, 2003; Kezar, 2004; Kezar et al., 2006c;
Morrison, 2008; Scott, 2002).
The academic profession has traditionally emphasized the importance of shared
responsibility for decision-making. Shared governance is designed as a process to ensure
shared responsibility for decision-making across the various levels of an institution.
Shared responsibility is considered critical for the sustainability and success of a college
or university and its faculty members (Ehrenberg, 2000; Eckel & Kezar, 2006; El-
Khawas, 1995; Gappa et al., 2007), providing a structure for the academic workforce to
be primary decision makers (AAUP, 1966; AFT, 2002; AGB, 2010). It is through shared
governance that faculty, administrators, and governing boards interact to make academic

20
decisions and influence change (Eckel & Kezar, 2006; Ehrenberg, 2000). Shared
governance provides a way to warrant that faculty and administrators have a voice in the
development of policies that affect the work they perform and the quality of their
institutions (AFT, 2004; Tierney & Minor, 2003).
Shared governance is a participatory decision-making process that involves broad
participation and shared responsibility for decision making. Conway (1984) defined
decision making as “any process wherein one or more actors determine a particular
choice . . . Participation refers to the sharing by two or more actors in some action or
matter” (p. 19). Further, participatory decision making is a democratic practice in
organizational management whereby a collective makes a choice or judgment about
something after collecting, sharing, and gathering significant ideas from different sources
(Hashim et al., 2010). It also is described as a mode of organizational operations wherein
decisions are arrived at by those who are to execute them and where both levels of the
organization, manager and subordinate, are represented (Lowin, 1968).
The ideals of participation, discussion in decision-making, and the invitation of a
wide range of opinions are critical for effective governance. The failures of governance
that affected non-academic sectors in the past decade can demonstrate the disorder that
ensues when these practices are disparaged. These failures in governance led to the
collapse of a complex enterprise, such as Enron, and withstanding problems among
intelligence agencies within the federal government. Managerial systems were geared to
resist interference and participation from lower ranks, despite their possession of the
appropriate level of education and training (Burgan, 2006). These failed managerial

21
systems in the non-academic sectors very closely resemble current governance practices
within most institutions of higher education. Current practices exclude non-tenure-track
faculty from participation in governance and the decision-making process. Institutions of
higher education should take notice of these failed managerial systems, in order to avoid
the failures that befell the non-academic sector enterprises.
Although governance practices differ from institution to institution, the traditional
design renders primary decision-making authority on academic matters to the
professoriate (Baldwin & Chronister, 2001; Eckel & Kezar, 2006; El-Khawas, 1995;
Tierney & Minor, 2003; Trakman, 2008). Faculty participation in governance is accepted
as an intrinsically desirable practice and perceived as a viable solution to improve
institutional effectiveness (AAUP, 1966, 2003; AFT, 2006, 2007; Altbach, 2004;
Birnbaum, 1988; Floyd, 1994; Gappa & Trice, 2011; Kezar, Lester, Carducci, Gallant, &
McGavin, 2007; Minor, 2004; NEA, 1989a, 2002; Tierney & Minor, 2003). However,
the traditional governance processes and structures exclude participation from a growing
group within the academic workforce, full-time, non-tenure-track faculty. Full-time, non-
tenure-track faculty are often seen as unqualified and unable to understand the
complexities of institutional structure and policies, despite their commitment to the
institution (Kezar, Lester et al., 2006) and as having similar educational backgrounds and
possessing qualifications and credentials similar to their tenured and tenure-track
colleagues (Benjamin, Hollinger, & Knight, 2005). Although full-time, non-tenure-track
faculty members are hired primarily for teaching functions, they are kept at the margins
of an organization and are still not invited to conversations regarding curriculum or issues

22
related to learning. These faculty members have valued expertise, teach large numbers of
students, and understand the learning contexts of the institution (Kezar, Lester et al.,
2006).
Shared governance and decision making occur at multiple levels within an
institution. As stated by Tierney and Minor (2004), “informal arrangements and
processes should be interpreted by the academic collective with regard to the relative
influence of different academic bodies and the significance of different decisions” (p. 92).
The relative influence of different academic bodies and the significance of different
decisions should be considered (Olson, 2009; Tierney & Minor, 2004). With the proper
attention, responsive academic decision-making groups that accommodate the changing
environment and meet contemporary organizational needs could be developed (Eckel &
Kezar, 2006). Faculty and administrators could together determine the appropriate
modes and levels of participation in governance, considering issues such as voting rights,
representation, and inclusion in committees and governance bodies (Scott, 2002; Kezar,
2004). The academic collective could clarify arrangements and processes for
collaborative decision-making.
In some institutions, schools or departments become the focal place for shared
governance and decision making. As noted by Tierney and Minor (2003), both
administrators and faculty identified academic departments as the most important venue
for shared decision making. As faculty members become more specialized, they assert
their expertise as a requirement for designing curriculum and assessing the qualification

23
of colleagues. Schools or colleges and their academic departments then become
significant venues for inclusive practices in shared governance and decision making.
Designed as a participatory process, shared governance is intended to reflect the
ideals of professionalization, participation, and shared decision-making. As Shavers
(2000) noted, “only 7 percent of the 217 institutions surveyed as part of the Project on
Faculty Appointments at Harvard University extended…governance matters to any full-
time, non-tenure-track faculty” (as cited in Gappa et al., 2007, p. 89). Institutions of
higher education might reconsider how they utilize and support all faculty members in
their varied roles and give thoughtful attention to rethinking academic workplaces
(Gappa et al., 2007, p. 128).
When any member of the academic community is not respected or valued, or
when his or her talents are not fully utilized, both the faculty member and his or her
university will lose (Gappa et al., 2007). When faculty feel respected and valued, their
commitment and motivation increases. In addition, organizational dynamics such as
communication, collaboration, and collegiality are strengthened. Inclusion, through a
participatory decision-making process, could support the shift in the academic workforce
while maintaining the tradition of shared responsibility.
Participatory Decision-Making Processes
Shared governance is a participatory decision-making process whereby multiple
voices and differing thoughts are not only shared but also valued. It is through shared
governance that faculty and administrators collaborate to make academic decisions and
influence change (Eckel & Kezar, 2006; Ehrenberg, 2000). There is a reciprocal

24
relationship between governance structures and the environments in which the
governance process occurs. As Kezar (2004) noted, despite this reciprocal relationship,
“A governance system can operate with imperfect structures and processes, but if
leadership is missing and relationships, [respect], and trust damaged, the governance
system will likely fail” (p. 45). In other words, leadership, trust, and relationships can
often supersede structures and processes in effective decision making (Kezar, 2004),
emphasizing the need for a participative environment.
Bensimon and Neumann (1993) emphasize participation as an obligation of both
the decision-making group as a whole, through shared norms, and its individual
members, through individual practices. Practices that build relationships and share
responsibility and values, as well as respect and trust, among decision-making groups are
vital to enhancing governance and improving institutional operations (Birnbaum, 2000;
Kezar, 2004). As such, participation can be seen as a function of the academic
community.
In order for shared governance to work as it is designed, interrelated dynamics
that support participatory decision-making processes are necessary. In the following
section, I present an analysis of literature that focuses on the elements that promote the
participatory decision-making process. Elements that influence the participatory
decision-making process include the need for leadership, shared responsibility, values,
relationships, trust, and respect. I will provide a framework for participatory decision-
making that captures these various elements and supports broad participation in decision-

25
making. This framework, a team approach to decision-making, can provide important
foundational ideas for rethinking current governance processes to be more inclusive.
Leadership
Typically, a hierarchical structure can be an obstacle to developing a system of
broad participation and shared responsibility for decision making. Individuals who hold
privileged positions in a group, whether by virtue of power, authority, expertise, or
membership in a dominant coalition, are frequently unable to perceive the subtle ways in
which less powerful members are isolated from the group (Bensimon & Neumann, 1993).
Traditional governance processes are representative of this bifurcated ideology. When
designing processes that emphasize the importance of teams and collaboration, it is
important to remember that familiarity with traditional practices can make it difficult for
newly formed groups’ members to understand how the group works and how members
interact (Bensimon & Neumann, 1993).
Over the past two decades, leadership has become process centered, collaborative,
nonhierarchical, and focused on mutual power and influence (Askling & Stensaker, 2002;
Bensimon & Neumann, 1993; Kezar, Carducci, & Contreras-McGavin, 2006; Spillane,
2005). These qualities are important in the shared decision-making process, as leadership
takes form in the interactions between individuals rather than as a function of one or
more leaders’ actions (Spillane, 2005). This collaborative perspective of leadership
emphasizes the importance of relationships and the quality of interactions between
members of the academic community within higher education.

26
An ideal leader, as defined by Bensimon and Neumann (1993), is an individual
“who knows how to find and bring together diverse minds—minds that reflect variety in
their points of view, thinking processes, and question-asking and problem-solving
strategies; minds that differ in their unique capacities as well as their unique limitations”
(p. 1). Leaders can facilitate effective teamwork by providing a sense of direction and
priority, and moving processes toward an outcome (Kezar, 2004). Leaders might develop
responsive, academic decision-making processes that accommodate the changing
environment and meet contemporary organizational needs (Eckel & Kezar, 2006).
Leadership can maximize the benefit of a participatory approach to decision making and
effective governance (Hashim et al., 2010; Kezar, 2004).
Leadership plays a critical role in broadening individual members’ understandings
of each other’s views. Leadership in the participative decision-making process seeks to
bring people who differ face-to-face in open dialogue about what they believe, see, and
experience. It encourages acceptance and learning, even of things that team members do
not always understand. Leadership helps to broaden perspectives and gain new insights
among and through team members by focusing on differences rather than commonalities,
(Bensimon & Neumann, 1993).
A participative environment values multiple voices and differing thoughts. As
stated by Bensimon and Neumann (1993), “When organizations fail to bring the voices of
those who are at the margins [of the organization] to the center, the organization suffers”
(p. 18). As such, the higher education community and the decision-making groups within
them need to be cognizant of a natural tendency to include individuals whose voices and

27
level of influence represent and resemble that of their own [i.e. tenured and tenure-track
faculty]; while simultaneously disregarding others who deviate from the group’s
dominant orientation [i.e. full-time, non-tenure-track faculty] (Bensimon & Neumann,
1993). These tendencies create a bifurcated workforce culture or a ‘second-class
citizenry’ among the differing faculty appointment types. It is important that higher
education communities create an inclusive process and environment that respects all
faculty members in their work regardless of their individual appointment type (Morrison,
2008). Leaders are in a vital role to promote an environment where participation in
decision-making can succeed.
Shared Responsibility and Values
Successful shared governance, where decision making is cooperative and
consensual, is supported through shared responsibility, values, and a vision of
institutional life. A sense of shared responsibility or collaboration is critical for
teamwork and decision-making to be successful. Collaboration entails an authentic
desire to share power with other members of the team, a philosophy of collaborative
teamwork that demands a lessening of status differences, and a joint effort by the
members of the team to produce collective benefits (Bensimon & Neumann, 1993;
Bensimon & O’Neil, 1998). Where shared values and decision making exist,
collaboration and commitment become common practice within teams (Miller & Katz,
2004).
All members of the academic community should accept responsibility and work
together to ensure high-quality, supportive academic workplaces where each member is

28
respected and valued for his or her contributions (Gappa et al., 2007). Values reflect the
deeply held feelings and beliefs of an individual toward particular things, people, or
actions. Organizational values are not evident through observation but, instead, must be
inferred (Bess & Dee, 2008). As organizational members become aware of the values
that characterize the institution, the values then become beliefs and ascribe to the culture
of the institution (Bess & Dee, 2008). Ultimately, values held by an institution and the
culture they create can lead to organizational members’ commitment and motivation to
work hard and collaborate. Shared responsibility and collaboration are enhanced through
mutual respect and trust among team members (Miller & Katz, 2004; Mishra, 1996).
Relationships, Respect, and Trust
Participatory decision making can be directly influenced by the quality of
relationships and interactions among the academic community. Relationships can often
be more important than structures and processes because organizations must be able to
alter structures and processes to adapt to circumstances (Kezar, 2004). The shift in the
academic workforce has emphasized the potential need for modification of shared
governance structures. Within the academic community, an environment in which
quality relationships exist will promote or hinder inclusion of a marginalized group.
Change strategies within an organization are successful if they are in alignment and
consistent with the existing environment (Kezar & Eckel, 2002).
Relationships that can facilitate decision making are built on values of trust and
respect between all members of the academic community, but specifically within
decision-making groups. When relationships among individuals in a decision-making

29
group are strengthened, the group becomes better equipped to work as a team and to
develop cognitively complex decisions (Kezar, 2004). Quality relationships will provide
the opportunity for team members to share their ideas.
Respect underlies all institutional efforts to provide an environment that promotes
personal and institutional growth and success (Gappa et al., 2007). Feelings of respect
come from the ways in which faculty members are treated, individually and collectively.
A culture of respect and commitment to shared responsibility, among faculty members
and administrators alike, are both critical to fostering an environment where faculty work
and the academic workplace are valued (Gappa et al., 2007). Individuals are more likely
to demonstrate concern for the welfare of others and have bonds of mutual obligation as
mutual respect and trust among team members increase (Miller & Katz, 2004; Tierney &
Minor, 2003).
Participatory decision-making depends on team members being willing to share
their insights and ideas. Unless there are relationships of respect and trust among team
members, ideas will not be shared (Kezar, 2004). Trust creates a form of social capital
(Coleman, 1990; Putnam, 1993) and becomes a primary element in constructive
relationships between groups (Lane, 1998). Trust exists as a reciprocal relationship and
facilitates interpersonal acceptance as well as openness of expression (Tierney & Minor,
2003; Zand, 1971). As Kezar (2004) stated, “When bonds among participants in [a]
group are tightened, the group becomes better able to work as a team and to develop
cognitively complex decisions . . . decisions that take into account more perspectives and
evidence” (p. 43). Ultimately, all faculty members need to believe that they are respected

30
and that trust exists among the team members. Otherwise, they are unlikely to value or
benefit from the shared decision-making process (Gappa et al., 2007).
It is critical to understand that participation and consultation in decision-making
alone are not sufficient while building communities and developing strong relationships
among members of the academic community. Tierney and Minor (2003) studied the
ways that faculty participate in governance, the degree and effectiveness of that
participation, and faculty attitudes toward it. Among the findings, indifference and a lack
of trust were identified as the most significant barriers to meaningful faculty
participation. Individuals reported that “meaningful involvement [was] difficult when the
faculty voice [was] not respected and shared governance [was] not taken seriously” (p.
18). In another study of college faculty, trust in leaders was positively related to
satisfaction with participation in decision making (Driscoll, 1978).
Members of the academic community need to be able to see that their input has
altered decisions. This is specifically important for full-time, non-tenure-track faculty as
the traditionally marginalized group. Minimally, this faculty group would need to see
that their input has been taken into consideration for their involvement to be considered
legitimate (Kezar, 2004). Members of the academic community need to trust in the
process of shared decision-making. They need to have confidence in the participatory
system to produce results and create change when necessary (NEA, 1989b). Over time,
interactions such as these lead to greater commitment, effectiveness, and productivity
(Morrison, 2008).

31
A Team Approach to Decision Making
Bensimon and Neumann (1993) have proposed a collaborative decision making
framework that has relevance to shared governance processes. This framework can
provide important foundational ideas for reshaping and rethinking current governance
processes for greater participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty. Redesigning
organizational structures to promote work in groups or teams can develop a responsive,
academic decision-making process (Bensimon & Neumann, 1993; Kezar, Carducci et al.,
2006). The focus in a team process is on interconnectedness and working collaboratively
rather than emphasizing individual members, all of which are equal and deserve respect.
The framework emphasizes the critical function that leadership plays in the development
of a responsive, collaborative, and participative environment where relationships can
develop and quality interactions prosper. Although differences and various
interpretations will exist among team members, they are considered an advantage as
multiple minds working together will be much more complex than one mind working
alone (Bensimon & Neumann, 1993; Hastie & Pennington, 1991; Kezar, Carducci et al.,
2006).
The study conducted by Bensimon and Neumann (1993) analyzed models of
teamwork in higher education. Although the study focused on the leadership orientation
of presidents and the executive officers within their cabinets, results are generalizable to
promoting teamwork across varying groups and shared governance processes within the
higher education community. This is a direct result of shared governance occurring

32
among and through a group of people who think and act together and bring a variety of
perspectives, experiences, and beliefs to their work (Bensimon & Neumann, 1993).
This emerging framework emphasizes the need to “interpret and understand how
group members work together and how the group functions as a collectivity” (p. 24).
Whereas the traditional term team meant a group of people working harmoniously in
pursuit of manager-determined goals and in machinelike form, it now focuses on diverse
thought and action. Attention is on how team members interact with one another, how
they share in decision making, and how they give meaning to their interactions and sense
of interconnectedness.
This new framework of interconnectedness and collaborative effort supports a
modified understanding of the team process. According to Bensimon and Neumann
(1993), a team is “a fluid set of beliefs, understandings, and differences—some consistent
and complementary, others inconsistent and contradictory—encompassing members and
exceeding them even as they create and recreate meaning, conflict, and ambiguity” (p.
30). Teams consist of a group of diverse individuals who assume different thinking roles
and engage in conversations that are conducive to organizational learning (Bensimon &
O’Neil, 1998). As such, decision making can be enhanced when it is approached as a
collaborative effort (Bensimon & Neumann, 1993).
The purpose of this emerging team model is to enlarge individual members’
understandings of each other’s views as well as to encourage and value differing thought.
It emphasizes group consensus and shared understandings of reality. This participative
and collaborative decision-making model does not suggest common thought or ideas

33
among every team member. Nor does it imply unanimous decisions. Bensimon and
Neumann (1993) state that team thinking, “requires individuals to work their minds and
express their thinking publicly, to other team members, regardless of how divergent from
the group norm their thinking may be and regardless of the topic under discussion” (p.
57). Every member of the team makes sense of the same reality in different ways. In
addition, interpretation of such reality will vary according to multiple experiences and
facets of knowledge. Effective governance depends on individuals being willing to share
their insights and ideas (Kezar, 2004). Team thinking presumes “individuals see the
world differently, that they process information differently, [and] that they make sense of
life in organizations differently (Bensimon & Neumann, 1993, p. 57). Inconsistency and
complexity within and among team members are expected and highly valued.
In the team framework, multiple voices and differing thoughts are shared and
valued. As a diverse group of individuals, team members will bring a variety of
perspectives, experiences, and beliefs to their work. Diverse perspectives will allow for
problems and issues to be examined from multiple points of view (Bensimon &
Neumann, 1993). Participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in shared
governance and the decision-making process aligns with this framework. Full-time, non-
tenure-track faculty might be able to provide a different perspective to academic
decisions as faculty members with diverse perceptions and experiences within the
academic community. As groups that bring together diverse individuals with a variety of
perspectives, experiences, and beliefs to their work, decision-making teams require
thoughtful development.

34
This teamwork model also emphasizes the critical function leadership plays in the
development of a responsive, collaborative, and participative environment where
relationships can develop and quality interactions prosper. Shared decision-making, as a
function of team-based leadership, is able to be more cognizant, alert, understanding,
competent, talented, acceptable, efficient, equitable, and supportive. Teamwork and
team-based leadership, as identified by Bensimon and Neumann (2003), can directly
contribute and influence participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in the shared
decision-making process. Thus, leaders should continually seek out effective methods to
build communities that emphasize the importance of developing strong relationships
(Miller & Katz, 2004).
Developing shared responsibility and values among and across team members is
also noted as a necessary element for teamwork. Through collaboration, a team develops
a sense of shared responsibility for what the group is doing (Bensimon & Neumann,
2003). Regardless of appointment type, faculty engaged in teamwork will focus on ideas
and on what they can do collectively about problems that belong to all. Valuing a variety
of perspectives, experiences, and beliefs among a diverse group of individuals
emphasizes the need for relationships, trust, and respect. As stated by Bensimon and
Neumann (2003), “An ethos of collaborative teamwork demands a lessening of status
differences” (p. 111). Individual understandings of their own and each other’s roles in
relation to their group may influence their feelings about whether or not they truly belong
to it. The more connected, involved, and considered individuals feel within a team, the
more likely they will feel that they truly belong as well as their thoughts and

35
contributions are valued. This teamwork model can provide important foundational ideas
for rethinking current governance processes to be more inclusive and provide broader
participation in decision-making.
Effects of the Inclusion of Marginalized Groups on Decision-Making Processes
Participatory decision-making has been a focus of organizational research for
decades. Researchers have examined relationships between participatory decision-
making and organizational dynamics including cognitive complexity, trust, respect,
communication, collaboration, and collegiality (Allen, Calkin, & Peterson, 1988;
Bartunek et al., 1983; Bensimon & Neumann, 2003; Conway, 1984; Driscoll, 1978;
Gappa et al., 2007; Hatano & Inagaki, 1991; Hutchins, 1991; Kezar, 2004; Kezar &
Eckel, 2004; Kezar et al., 2006c; Neumann, 1991; O’Reilly & Roberts, 1977; Podsakoff,
MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990; Scott, 1962; Tschannen-Moran, 2001;
Wrightsman, 1974; Zand, 1971) as well as employee outcomes such as job performance
and satisfaction (Allen et al., 1988; Conway, 1984; Driscoll, 1978; Kezar et al., 2006;
Lam, Chen, & Schaubroeck, 2002). Study findings indicate positive relationships
between participatory decision-making and its impact on organizational dynamics.
Shared governance becomes an activity that participants see meaningfully shaping their
environment and creating an effective context for learning as well as a thriving institution
(Kezar, 2004). When institutions of higher education foster inclusion, collegial
communication, and provide opportunities for faculty members to make connections with
each other, the benefits accrue both for the institution and the individual faculty members
(Gappa et al., 2007).

36
In the previous section, I reviewed the elements that help to create positive
outcomes for shared decision-making processes. In the following section, I will discuss
the actual outcomes and attributes that can be developed if these aforementioned
dynamics are in place within an institution. The effects are ordered to show the way that
different outcomes build on each other to shape further outcomes and enhance
organizational effectiveness.
Cognitive Complexity
A critical aspect for effective and collaborative teams to exist is an inclusive
climate that embraces all team members regardless of differences among them.
Differences in thought and a variety of perspectives amid team members are among the
strongest attributes of teamwork and participatory decision-making. Multiple minds
joined together are much more complex than one mind working alone, regardless of its
capabilities (Bensimon & Neumann, 1993; Kezar et al., 2006b). Differences in thought, a
variety of perspectives, and multiple minds working together increase the cognitive
complexity of a team.
Cognitive complexity is defined as the number of independent facets of concepts
an individual produces in describing a particular domain of phenomena (Scott, 1962). In
other words, it is an individual’s knowledge, contemplation, reasoning, and ability to
understand and interpret varying incidents among the continuum of life experiences.
Furthermore, it is the ability of the individual to draw upon his or her knowledge base
and experiences to participate and engage in discussion and making decisions. As
explained by Lattuca (2005), thinking and learning are largely dependent of and affected

37
by the multilayered environments and experiences in which individuals encounter every
day. Per this individualistic account of cognitive complexity, one could presume that
depending on the knowledge and experiences an individual has had, he or she may be
limited to the amount of information he or she has available to make specific decisions.
However, working in teams increases the cognitive complexity of the team; as every team
member possesses different knowledge bases, can provide multiple perspectives, and can
provide a greater opportunity for diverse thought. As such, although cognitive
complexity has been defined as an attribute of an individual mind (Bartunek, Gordon, &
Weathersby, 1983; Bieri & Blacker, 1956; Lattuca, 2005; Resnick, 1991; Scott, 1962;) it
may also be viewed as a property of a social unit, such as a team (Bensimon & Neumann,
1993; Neumann, 1991).
Shared governance, as a participatory decision-making model supported by the
team as culture concept, builds the capacity for cognitive complexity. The inclusion of
full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in shared governance affects and enhances the
cognitive complexity of decision-making teams. This faculty group, as a diverse group
of individuals with varying experiences and knowledge bases, can provide multiple
perspectives and a greater opportunity for diverse thought. As the majority faculty group
whose primary role is teaching, it would be important to solicit their thoughts and views,
especially as it relates to teaching and learning. As stated by Neumann (1991), “To view
the team [and its members] as a means for enlarging what the organization knows, and
how it thinks and learns, is appealing in its implications for enhancing organizational
performance” (p. 507).

38
As stated by Bensimon and Neumann (1993), “In its cognitive function the team
is a brain like social structure that enlarges the intelligence span of individual team
members” (p. 41). The social interaction that takes place within and among a team and
its members plays an important role in the acquisition of knowledge (Bartunek et al.,
1983; Hatano & Inagaki, 1991; Resnick, 1991). As such, effective teams are composed
of members with a high level of diversity in both experience and point of view.
Generating multiple, diverse perspectives on problems at hand are highly valued within
teams (Bensimon & Neumann, 1993). Additionally, teams “appreciate the diverse
interpretations team members bring to issues before the team” (p. 125). Cognitively
diverse teams, like inclusive decision-making groups, are likely to achieve greater levels
of success (Neumann, 1991).
Teams, as a collaborative group, would have a richer knowledge base than any
individual member would alone, regardless of the individual member’s capabilities. No
individual team member has acquired or has ready access to all of the required
knowledge and information needed to make decisions. However, the knowledge and
information is usually owned by at least one member within the team. As such,
participation by a diverse group of individuals in collaborative thought, discussion, and
decision-making will likely be more effective than an individual enterprise as a result of
multiple minds working together as a whole (Bartunek et al., 1983; Hatano & Inagaki,
1991; Hutchins, 1991).
Given the interconnectedness of this collective model, an increase in coordination
and interdependence between individuals is inevitable. As such, the experiences and

39
perceptions of one member can influence those of another (Parker & Price, 1994). This
enhances the cognitive flexibility of teams and its members. Cognitive flexibility is
defined as the readiness with which an individual’s concept system [or knowledge base]
changes in response to appropriate environmental stimuli (Scott, 1962). In other words, it
is the ability of an individual to continually develop his or her knowledge base to account
for the acquisition of new experiences and varying perspectives and thoughts. Shared
governance as work in teams enhances cognitive flexibility, as team members are able to
move beyond their personal biases and interests. As a result, they can focus decision-
making on the common, collective good (Kezar, 2004).
Trust and Respect Lead to Commitment and Motivation
An environment of trust and respect presents a variety of benefits that can
promote the organization as well as contribute in a variety of ways to its organizational
effectiveness. Trust and respect are fundamental to all institutional efforts toward
providing a work environment that encourages personal and institutional growth and
success. When any member of the academic community is not respected or valued, when
his or her talents are not fully realized and utilized, or when trust within the community is
weakened, both the faculty member and the institution lose (Gappa et al., 2007). Trust
and respect are crucial for a constructive work environment.
Shared governance and participatory decision-making contribute to an atmosphere
of mutual respect and trust. In organizations with a high level of trust and respect,
individuals are more comfortable and are able to invest their energies in contributing to
organizational goals rather than protecting personal, individual objectives (Tschannen-

40
Moran, 2001). Commitment to shared governance means regular exchanges of
information and opinion, consultation, reflection, mediation, and compromise. The
participatory and collaborative consultative process lessens differences within and among
various organizational groups (Scott, 2002). A culture of respect and a commitment to
shared responsibility from faculty members and administrators alike are both critical in
fostering an environment where employment equity, freedom of expression, flexibility,
professional growth, and collegiality are part of faculty work and the academic workplace
(Gappa et al., 2007).
Participation and a more genuine sharing of decision-making authority, not only
creates the potential for better quality decisions, but greater motivation and commitment
on the part of the organization’s members (Tschannen-Moran, 2001). As stated by
Hashim, Alam, and Siraj (2010), “Participation in decision-making enlivens all the
members of an organization or institution” (p. 387). Internal and intrinsic motivation and
morale are strengthened by participation in decision-making. This motivation is a result
of an employee’s awareness and belief in the importance of his or her participation and
contribution (Allen et al., 1988). Morale and determination are higher at institutions
where faculty members play a major role in governance, where they have confidence in
the system to produce results (NEA, 1989). Greater commitment, motivation, and morale
are encouraged as well as supported by an environment of trust and respect.
When trust and respect are present with an organization, communication,
collaboration, and collegiality are strengthened. Each of these dynamics is mutually

41
beneficial and influential, often cited in literature as causal to another and grounded in an
environment of trust and respect.
Communication
Trust is necessary for open communication in an organization and the quality of
communication has been linked to organizational effectiveness (O’Reilly & Roberts,
1977). Academic institutions provide educational experiences. The variety and
complexity of the tasks performed by institutions of higher education produce an
inescapable interdependence among governing board, administration, and faculty. The
relationship calls for adequate communication among these components, and full
opportunity for appropriate joint planning and effort (AAUP, 1966). When
organizational members are in doubt, they can act according to a set of shared values
(Bess & Dee, 2008), a collaborative understanding.
Communication functions as a cultural process within an organization (Tierney &
Minor, 2004). Among institutions of higher education, regardless of the governance
structure utilized for deliberations, decisions are reached through processes of
communication (Tierney & Minor, 2004). As stated by the AAUP (1966), “a college or
university in which all the components are aware of their interdependence, of the
usefulness of communication among themselves, and of the force of joint action will
enjoy increased capacity to solve educational problems,” (p. 135). Individuals with a
high degree of trust are likely to disclose more accurate, relevant, and complete
information about problems, as well as their thoughts, feelings, or ideas (Wrightsman,
1974; Zand, 1971). Results of a case study involving a university campus that

42
restructured its governance process to include non-tenure-track faculty noted an
improvement in ongoing communication between tenured and tenure-track faculty and
their non-tenure-track colleagues. Communication had been mostly divided during the
three years before the restructuring process (Kezar et al., 2006c). The role of
communication in the governance of academic organizations is often underestimated.
Collaboration
Building an atmosphere of trust is a significant factor in constructing a climate
that supports collaboration (Tschannen-Moran, 2001). Academic decisions benefit from
the participation of all faculty appointment types. As stated by Hashim et al. (2010):
A group can take much more information and experience to bear on a decision or
problem than can an individual acting alone. So the participation of [full-time,
non-tenure-track faculty] in decision-making will help faculty management
achieve the institution’s aims. In addition, individuals with varied experiences
and interests help the group see decision situations and problems from different
angles. (p. 386)

A joint effort made by a group to produce collective benefits is the foundation of
collaboration (Bensimon & O’Neil, 1998). In a study of inclusion in academic
governance, it was noted that the process of working together in governance has helped
the two faculty groups, tenured and tenure-track faculty and non-tenure-track faculty,
better understand each other’s interests and build stronger college community (Kezar et
al., 2006c).
In a study conducted by Tschannen-Moran (2001) regarding the relationship
between collaboration and trust, findings argue for the importance of trust in nurturing
collaborative relationships. The study demonstrated the important link between
collaboration and trust. In schools where there was greater trust, there tended to be a

43
greater level of collaboration. As Tschannen-Moran (2001) explains, “As [organizations]
struggle to reinvent themselves to respond to the needs of a dynamic world, collaboration
provides an important mechanism for organizations to work toward excellence.
Collaboration holds the possibility of higher quality decisions” (p. 327).
Collegiality
Collegiality within the academic community is more important than ever as
faculty appointment types become more diverse. Collegiality is understood as a
community of individuals with shared interests (Birnbaum, 1988). Gappa et al. (2007)
refer to collegiality as “opportunities for faculty members to feel that they belong to a
mutually respectful community of scholars who value each faculty member’s
contributions to the institution and feel concern for their colleagues’ well-being” (p. 305).
Furthermore, “as colleagues find opportunities to interact with each other, they typically
deepen their understanding of what each can offer and develop scholarly connections”
(Gappa et al., p. 305). Governance policies, structures, and practices might offer
opportunities for all faculty members to participate in roles appropriate to their
experiences and appointment types. In turn, faculty will be positioned to contribute more
meaningfully to the institution (Gappa et al., 2007). Governance is a shared
responsibility, a joint effort involving multiple constituencies with particular emphasis
given to the participation of faculty (Birnbaum, 1999; Lam et al., 2002). As such,
distributing shared governance responsibilities among all full-time faculty appointment
types would correspond with these joint efforts. By including all faculty members across
various appointment types in shared governance, colleges and universities can ensure that

44
each faculty member is a fully participating member of the academic community (Gappa
& Trice, 2011).
Collegiality is held up as the ideal framework for faculty interactions as well as
institutional decision-making. The professional norms caution faculty to moderate
respect for academic freedom with support for one’s colleagues (Austin, 1990). As noted
by Gappa and Trice (2011), collegiality can be particularly important to non-tenure-track
faculty who often feel marginalized within their departments. When they are invited to
participate in various campus events and activities, such as decision-making, they
appreciate the opportunity to participate in campus life and feel more connected to and
valued by the institution (Eckel & Kezar, 2006). In the Kezar et al. (2006) study, upon
inclusion in governance processes, non-tenure-track faculty felt that they had a voice.
They felt free to challenge the administrators and tenure-track faculty members on their
perspectives. Both faculty groups had also gained respect for each other. They began
advocating for each other’s faculty related issues. The freedom of expression on behalf
of the non-tenure-track faculty and the mutual advocacy were occurrences that had not
transpired prior to the modified governance structure. Inclusion of non-tenure-track
faculty can build collegiality among the varying faculty groups.
Collegiality stands to diminish the divisions between tenured or tenure-track
faculty and their contingent colleagues. The second-class citizenship and bifurcated
workforce environment typically felt by full-time, non-tenure-track faculty could be
lessened. Within a collegial environment, full-time, non-tenure-track faculty members

45
are treated as partners in a joint effort, as people equally committed to an educational
mission (Scott, 2002).
Challenges to collegiality can and do exist within organizations. Oftentimes,
individuals in positions of leadership or power seem to be reluctant to extend genuine
influence to individuals holding lower level positions within the organization. Perhaps
they assume that these individuals do not have the expertise to make valuable
contributions or because they do not trust them to make decisions in the best interest of
the organization (Tschannen-Moran, 2001). This highlights the need for collaborative,
collegial, and shared experiences, which lead group members to develop interrelated
knowledge structures and understanding that facilitate the cooperative group process
(Lam et al., 2002).
Job Satisfaction and Performance
Research has found that participation in decision making also is associated with
job satisfaction (Allen, Calkin, & Peterson, 1988; Conway, 1984; Driscoll, 1978).
Employees with higher levels of participation are more satisfied with their job and with
their place within the organization (Kezar, Lester et al., 2006; Lam, Chen, &
Schaubroeck, 2002). Participation in decision making contributes to these factors by
developing more of the employees’ abilities and by engaging them on more levels. In a
review of over 100 studies on participatory decision making in a variety of organizations,
Allen et al. (1988) found that a “universal relationship [exists] in virtually every setting
and for all levels of employees; increased participation in decision making led to
increased [job] satisfaction” (p. 38). Among faculty, positive interactions with colleagues

46
and perceived positive relations among faculty are generally predictors of satisfaction
(Gappa et al., 2007).
Driscoll (1978) conducted research to “assess the relative usefulness of trust and
participation in decision making as related to satisfaction with the work organization” (p.
44). Driscoll found that increased levels of participation are associated with greater
overall satisfaction with the organization and with participation itself. Similarly, the
greater the congruence between desired and perceived participation, the greater the
satisfaction both with the organization and with participation itself (Allen et al., 1988;
Driscoll, 1978).
Studies regarding faculty appointment types in higher education found that non-
tenure-track faculty consistently found interest in shared governance (Gappa & Leslie,
1993; Baldwin & Chronister, 2002). Given the results of Driscoll’s study, if full-time,
non-tenure-track faculty have an interest in participating in shared governance and
decision-making, their exclusion from this process would have a negative impact on their
satisfaction and performance within the institution. Morale is higher at institutions where
faculty members play a major role in governance and decision-making, where they have
confidence in the system to produce results (NEA, 1989b). As a result, it makes sense to
include these faculty members in the shared governance process in order to promote their
experiences within their roles, support their contribution to the university or college, and
promote the success of the institution.
Results of a study by Bland et al. (2006) indicate that the effects of different
employment practices for faculty appointment types may influence full-time, non-tenure-

47
track faculty’s productivity. Researchers concluded that their results did not indicate the
full-time, non-tenure-track faculty members were less personally committed to their work
or less able to be productive than their tenured or tenure-track colleagues were. Instead,
they hypothesized that the non-tenure-track system of employment itself may be less
conducive to commitment and productivity of the non-tenure-track faculty group.
Considering this research, which demonstrates that the employment system has more
influence on productivity [and commitment] than does individual effort, examining
current full-time, non-tenure-track practices would benefit institutions of higher
education (Gappa et al., 2007).
Challenges Posed for Shared Governance
Institutions of higher education employ full-time, non-tenure-track faculty as
specialists in certain curricula or fields. Their primary responsibility is in teaching. As
such, colleges and universities do not expect most non-tenure-track faculty to do the same
amount and type of research, teaching, and service as tenured faculty (Kezar et al.,
2006c). As expectations regarding research, teaching, and service do differ, so do
thoughts on the level of participation full-time, non-tenure-track faculty should or should
not have in decision-making. Inclusion in shared governance and decision-making for
full-time, non-tenure-track faculty is met with several challenges considering these
varying expectations as well as the overall lack of priority inclusive practices receive.
Non-tenure-track faculty has shown consistent interest in participating in shared
governance (Baldwin & Chronister, 2001; Gappa & Leslie, 1993) and has a major
commitment to their institution (Kezar et al., 2006c). Among tenured and tenure-track

48
faculty, there has also been acceptance of including non-tenure-track faculty in
governance and decision-making (Kezar et al., 2006c). Despite this expressed interest
and recent acceptance, there exist challenges to the inclusion of this faculty group in
shared governance and decision-making. In the following section I will provide literature
on the challenges facing efforts of inclusion of full-time, non-tenure-track in shared
governance. I will begin with a discussion regarding the resistance among the varying
faculty appointment types. Then, I will discuss resistance due to institutional tensions.
Faculty Resistance
Inclusion of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in shared governance and
decision-making is met with resistance across the varying faculty appointment types,
including the full-time, non-tenure-track faculty themselves. This resistance is a result of
several factors. Institutional factors such as academic freedom and the bifurcated
workforce create institutional barriers for participation. An additional factor is exclusion
from the governance process by the full-time, non-tenure-track faculty themselves. They
choose not to participate, even if involvement in the governance process was an option.
In the following section, I discuss the challenges or barriers created for participation by
factors such as academic freedom, the bifurcated workforce, and self-exclusion.
Academic freedom. Institutions of higher education have a tradition of academic
freedom (AGB, 2010; AAUP; 1966). Academic freedom provides the liberty for those
with disciplinary credentials grounded in their scholarly expertise to express their ideas
freely, however critical, without fear of consequence or repercussion, to call established
beliefs into question, and to engage in new areas of scholarly inquiry regardless if doing

49
so meant challenging accepted norms (Scott, 2002). Although the AAUP (1966)
recommends that all members of the faculty, tenured or not, are entitled to academic
freedom, in practice, non-tenure-track faculty have little, if any, academic freedom. The
lack of this freedom for non-tenure-track faculty creates assumptions on the behaviors
and actions these faculty members are willing to take. As faculty members with
appointments on a contractual basis, their fear of consequence or repercussion might be
significantly heightened. A consequence such as contract non-renewal becomes a cause
for concern and hesitation towards participation (Curtis & Jacobe, 2006). Therein lies the
resistance.
Resistance is guided by an assumption that due to the absence of academic
freedom, non-tenure-track faculty will lack the courage to have a voice and be critical of
thoughts, ideas, and individuals, when necessary. Concerns regarding whether they are
able to be critical of administration or their fellow colleagues arise (Kezar et al., 2006c).
Without the security that academic freedom provides, non-tenure-track faculty may not
express unpopular, challenging, or innovative ideas. They may often avoid the risk
associated with an unpopular decision due to fear that their contracts will not be renewed
(AAUP, 2003; Curtis & Jacobe, 2006; Morrison, 2008). The absence of academic
freedom leaves these faculty members unprotected. In a decision-making environment,
such as shared governance, the inability to act or desire to please can be unsettling for
other team members. The assumption that non-tenure-track faculty will fall short of
being critical of decisions, due to their lack of academic freedom, is of concern.

50
The bifurcated workforce. Institutional factors and policies that exclude full-
time, non-tenure-track faculty [such as academic freedom], underscore the class
distinctions among faculty members (Morrison, 2008). Unspoken biases, within and
among the varying faculty appointment types, contribute to the bifurcated workforce.
These implicit preconceptions overlook the work and contribution of this marginalized
faculty group. The class distinctions and unspoken biases create an ‘us versus them’
environment. They contribute to a bifurcated workforce in which these faculty members
are viewed and treated as second-class citizens and therefore placed at the bottom of the
faculty hierarchy (Kezar, Lester & Anderson, 2006c).
This second-class citizenship can create an unofficial hierarchy of authority and
power. Tenured and tenure-track faculty not only decides the major issues, but also
decides the level of participation non-tenure-track faculty will have (Baldwin &
Chronister, 2001). Oftentimes, non-tenure-track faculty voiced hesitation to truly
participate in governance because tenure-track faculty would not permit their full
participation (Kezar et al., 2006c, p. 123). Inclusion is faced with an exclusionary
environment where authority and power is held by a select group and is unshared.
An unwillingness to share authority over decisions is based on the notion that
non-tenure-track faculty are not equivalent in terms of their roles and status. Many
tenured and tenure-track faculty equate the tenure process with understanding the faculty
identity and responsibilities (Kezar et al., 2006c). Since non-tenure-track faculty are not
privy to nor required to endure such a process, their role and understanding of what it
means to be a faculty member is put into question. It is important to note that those with

51
formal power and authority [i.e. tenured and tenure-track faculty] are sometimes blind to
interests outside of their immediate realm, to alternative processes of decision-making,
and are unable to grasp the ways in which less powerful members [i.e. full-time, non-
tenure-track faculty] are alienated from the group (Bensimon & Neumann, 1993; Miller
& Katz, 2004). In other words, although authority and power is an unspoken feature of
the tenured and tenure-track faculty type, they may be unaware of interests outside their
own and alternate ways of operating.
Self-exclusion. Often, full-time, non-tenure-track faculty elect not to participate
for one of two reasons, sometimes both. They wish to avoid the risk of associating
themselves with an unpopular administrative decision or they simply do not have the time
or desire to participate in governance processes (Baldwin & Chronister, 2001; Curtis &
Jacobe, 2006; Kezar, Lester et al., 2006; Morrison, 2008). As noted above, because this
faculty group is not protected by the rights associated with academic freedom, they may
be afraid to express unpopular, challenging, or innovative ideas for fear that their
contracts will not be renewed (AAUP, 2003; Curtis & Jacobe, 2006; Morrison, 2008).
Rather than taking the risk of possibly not having their contract renewed, full-time, non-
tenure-track faculty exclude themselves from the decision-making process.
Full-time, non-tenure-track faculty members have, primarily, teaching
responsibilities and often carry a heavy course load. They often have very little
flexibility in their schedule as their responsibilities are often divided differently than their
tenure-track colleagues. A high teaching load might result in time constraints that present
another barrier to their participation in governance (Curtis & Jacobe, 2006; Morrison,

52
2008). In addition, Baldwin and Chronister (2001) found that some full-time, non-
tenure-track faculty prefers to restrict their involvement to teaching or other specialized
duties. Faculty noted that governance was not one of their areas of expertise and thus did
not expect or desire to be included.
Institutional Pressures
Participation in governance processes has been a long-standing tradition for
institutions of higher education. Within this tradition however, only tenured and tenure-
track faculty are deemed eligible to participate in governance and decision-making
processes. With the shift in the academic workforce and subsequent decline in tenured
and tenure-track faculty members, there is growing concern over the sustainability of
academic governance. Studies of governance consistently find that faculty governance
committees are often understaffed and that much governance is left in the hands of
committee members who are unrepresentative of the broader ranks (Kezar et al., 2006c).
Institutions are in a position where tradition may no longer suffice the needs of the
institution. Whereas traditional governance processes typically engaged in decision-
making with an institutional majority, the process is now faced with the institutional
minority available for consultation.
An additional pressure faced by institutions is the potential for the transformation
to inclusive practices to effectively undermine tenure as a feature of faculty employment
(Scott, 2002). Full-time, non-tenure-track faculty are not expected to do the same amount
and type of research, teaching, and service as tenured or tenure-track faculty (Kezar et al.,
2006c). Since full-time, non-tenure-track faculty are on a term contract, have fewer

53
expectations than their tenured and tenure-track colleagues, and would be afforded the
privilege of participating in governance processes, the concern lies in whether the future
workforce would choose a tenure-track faculty position. Although tenured and tenure-
track faculty positions will not disappear from the academic workforce, they are
declining in numbers.
Conclusion
Organizations are complex structures comprised of varying systems, individuals,
and ideologies. As a result of environmental, social, economic, technological, and
political forces, institutions of higher education are experiencing increased pressure and
heightened tension among organizational structures and processes. These forces and
pressures present challenges to institutions because they often entail changes. These
necessitated changes often impact well-established practices and policies, such as shared
governance (AGB, 2009).
This chapter has provided an analysis of literature discussing the benefits and
potential challenges of including non-tenure-track faculty in academic governance. The
need for effective participatory governance structures, particularly as it relates to groups
that have been marginalized within organizations or societies was discussed. The team
framework was presented as a model for effective participatory decision-making. As a
participatory decision-making model, inclusion of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in
shared governance has the potential to build greater capacity for decision-making,
promote confidence, commitment and morale across the entire academic community. It
also has the ability to increase institutional effectiveness. The influence leadership,

54
collaboration, relationships, trust, and respect have in fostering an environment
conducive to broad participation in decision-making was also provided. The following
chapter will review the methodology for this qualitative study.

55
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
As discussed in previous chapters, there is limited research and ultimately little is
known about the experiences and perceptions concerning the inclusion of full-time, non-
tenure-track faculty in academic governance and decision-making. Although a majority
of institutions implement structures and practices that ignore and exclude full-time, non-
tenure-track faculty from governance practices, there are other institutions in which
inclusion of this faculty group in governance and decision-making practices exists. This
study explored an inclusive institution and how its modified governance practices might
influence decision-making. The purpose of this qualitative study was to develop an
understanding of the experiences and perceptions of various stakeholders regarding the
inclusion and participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in academic governance
and decision-making as well as the potential influence their participation could have on
organizational dynamics.
The knowledge acquired from an institution with inclusive practices might not
only be transferable to other institutions, but it could also be utilized to inform future
practice. This chapter will focus on the research design and methodology that was used
in this qualitative study to understand the following:
• What are the perceptions of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty of their
participation in School-level decision-making?
• How do various stakeholders in a School perceive the participation of full-time,
non-tenure-track faculty in School-level decision-making affects organizational
dynamics?

56
Each of these questions was intended to help understand the potential influence,
experience, and perception inclusion could have on shared governance and decision-
making. Furthermore, they helped recognize the influence inclusion could have on
organizational dynamics.
In the chapter that follows, the researcher presents a rationale for the study design.
Then, she will provide details of the setting, participants, data collection, and data
analysis procedures. The chapter will conclude with identification of any bias or
background influence, limitations concerning the study, and strategies that she utilized to
ensure the trustworthiness of data collection and analysis.
Rationale for the Case Study Design
This study used a qualitative approach to gain an in-depth understanding of the
shared governance process within an inclusive setting. The qualitative approach aims to
discover and understand a phenomenon (or multiple phenomena), process, or the
perspectives of the people involved (Merriam, 2001; Patton, 2002) and how these
individuals make sense of their world (Merriam, 2001).
A qualitative approach was the most appropriate design for this study since it
helped address questions related to processes like shared governance and decision-
making, it helped in understanding the meaning individuals have constructed, it studied
the phenomenon of inclusion within its natural setting, and it helped gather detailed and
rich information about inclusion and its potential influence on the process as well as
organizational dynamics. The influence, perspectives, and perceptions of inclusion are

57
likely shaped by multiple phenomena. The value that this design provided was that it
allowed her to understand the phenomenon within its complexity.
Based on the need for an in-depth focus on inclusion and its influence on
governance within a bounded case, an instrumental case study method was chosen.
Creswell (1998) defines an instrumental case study as one in which “the focus . . . may be
on an issue or issues, with the case used instrumentally to illustrate the issue” (p. 62).
The case study approach was utilized to discover and gain an in-depth understanding of
the context, its characteristics, and the meaning for those involved (Merriam, 2001;
Sanders, 1981).
An instrumental case study was applied in this study for several reasons. First, it
provided an in-depth, detailed, and information rich focus on inclusion and participation
in decision-making as it occurred within a single, bounded context. This helped the
researcher understand inclusion within its specific setting. Second, the researcher was
able to explore and collect data from multiple sources of information. Analysis of
multiple data sources provided an understanding of governance structures and its varying
components. Lastly, this case study method engaged in an interpretive mode of inquiry.
Through this mode of inquiry, the researcher was able to analyze and interpret individual
views or perspectives on inclusion. This was valuable in understanding how individuals
make meaning of the process as well as how they come to perceive and understand
inclusion and participation in decision-making. These experiences and the knowledge
gained by the instrumental case study were influential to the case, allowing for
interpretations and illustrations, as well as creating transferable findings (Merriam, 2001).

58
As Merriam (2001) stated, “Case study is a particularly suitable design if [one is]
interested in process” (p. 33). Governance is a process. Traditional governance
structures often ignore opportunities to include non-tenure-track faculty members in the
process. As such, case study can lend understanding. The various elements within the
governance process as well as the varied participants were examined through this
approach. This study provides insight on how these inclusive practices can influence
decision-making and the organizational work environment.
The instrumental case study approach emphasizes the importance of context, or
the setting in which the phenomena takes place. This qualitative research method is an
intensive description and analysis of a single unit or bounded system (Creswell, 1998;
Merriam, 2001). This approach helped the researcher understand and explain the
meaning of social phenomena with as little disruption of the natural setting as possible.
Therefore, this made the context in which the phenomenon took place very important.
Although research is limited and there is little known about the effects of inclusion of
full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in academic governance and decision-making, the
focus of this study was to gather in-depth information of such practice within the context
of a single institution and its academic colleges.
Institutions differ in many ways, particularly in their structures (Birnbaum, 1988).
As stated in the previous chapters, there is no one-size-fits-all model for governance or
participation in decision-making. Structures and practices, whether inclusive or not, will
vary. As such, a single case study provided an ability to gather rich information about the
phenomenon, as it exists within specific boundaries. It was important to understand how

59
the shared governance process worked within the institution as well as within several of
the academic units and their subsequent departments.
It is important to note that studying this phenomenon across multiple sites, as a
multiple case study, would have been valuable. However, the inclusion of this faculty
group is an emerging phenomenon and is applied within few institutions. Understanding
inclusion at a single site, within a specific academic college was important before trying
to understand it across multiple sites, as multiple sites would have likely meant that
processes would have been different. Exploring an individual setting provided an in-
depth and detailed understanding of the phenomenon itself, how it takes place, and how it
has impacted its specific setting. As stated by Merriam (2001), “By concentrating on a
single phenomenon or entity (the case), the researcher aims to uncover the interaction of
significant factors characteristic of the explanation. The case study focuses on holistic
description and explanation” (p. 29). The knowledge acquired from this information-rich
case study could not only be transferable to other institutions, but it could also directly
influence policy, practice, and future research (Merriam, 2001).
The case study method allowed the researcher to work through and interpret
various forms of data to understand the phenomena, as it exists within its context
(Merriam, 2001). Document analysis enabled the identification of how inclusion is
defined, the extent to which it is afforded, and how it is realized. Interviews with
individuals involved in the participatory decision-making process (i.e. administrators and
tenured, tenure-track, and full-time, non-tenure-track faculty), enabled an understanding
of the influence inclusion has on shared governance. It also enabled an understanding of

60
the experiences and perceptions individuals had regarding the practices that facilitated
decision-making, as well as shaped organizational characteristics. This provided the
opportunity for the researcher to focus on the perspectives of individuals and the meaning
they ultimately gave to and received from the process within the given context.
This instrumental case study utilized an interpretive mode of inquiry. Through
this mode of inquiry, understanding the meaning of a process or experience constitutes
the knowledge to be gained (Merriam, 2001). Merriam (2001) describes an interpretive
case study as a process in which the researcher “gathers as much information about the
problem as possible with the intent of analyzing, interpreting, or theorizing about the
phenomenon…the investigator might take the data and develop a typology, a continuum,
or categories that conceptualize different approaches to the task” (p. 38). A critical
aspect of this type of inquiry is that it values individual meaning making and perspective.
Understanding of human thought and action in social and organizational contexts
is of primary interest. Interpretive research focuses on the complexity of human sense
making and attempts to understand a phenomenon through the different meanings that
individuals assign to it (Klein & Myers, 1999). It was important to understand the
perceptions and perspectives of individuals involved in the process. As stated by
Creswell (1998), “Knowledge is within the meanings people make of it; knowledge is
gained through people talking about their meanings;….and knowledge evolves, emerges,
and is inextricably tied to the context in which it is studied” (p. 19). Therefore, the
context in which this phenomenon takes place is also critical to understanding the
phenomena itself.

61
The case study approach facilitated the study of issues and processes in depth and
detail. It revealed how the varying component parts in a process work together to form a
whole, while simultaneously revealing a holistic understanding of the whole context back
to an improved understanding of each part (Merriam, 2001; Patton, 2002). This is
particularly important to this study because it was important to understand the
interrelatedness of each component, inclusion, the process as a result of inclusion, and the
perspectives of individuals involved; how each component plays a part in the process as
well as among and between the varying components.
Site Selection
In an instrumental case study in which the context plays as critical a role as the
phenomenon, a sample must be purposeful. As Patton (2002) stated, “The logic and
power of purposeful sampling lies in selecting information-rich cases for study in depth.
Information-rich cases are those from which one can learn a great deal about issues of
central importance to the purpose of the research, thus the term purposeful sampling” (p.
230). The site chosen to conduct this qualitative research study was Inclusive Practices
University (IPU).
IPU is a medium-size, private, comprehensive, not-for-profit institution located in
California. There are four main reasons for having chosen IPU as the site for this case
study. First, it was one of the few institutions where inclusion of full-time, non-tenure-
track faculty in governance occurs. Second, faculty statistics at IPU indicate a large
number of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty, which is in keeping with the shift in the
academic workforce. Third, as a medium-size institution, IPU has the ability to provide

62
support for processes that are effective for shared governance and decision-making. As
stated by Bensimon and Neumann (1993), “Small[er] colleges reflect the characteristics
that are conducive to real teamwork” (p. 50). Lastly, there is a potential for other
comparable institutions looking to move to a model of inclusion, to be able to transfer the
knowledge gained to their campus. A Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) dissertation focuses
on the practicality of the field and how practices can be transferred to individual work
settings. The researcher currently works at a medium-size, private, comprehensive, not-
for-profit institution. This institution is looking to implement processes and practices
towards inclusion of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in governance and decision-
making. She anticipates this case study will provide information that is reflective of and
transferrable to her institution.
IPU’s academic structure consists of one college and five schools: the College of
Liberal Arts & Sciences, the School of Education, the School of Business, the School of
Engineering, the School of Theology, and the School of Law (IPU Faculty Handbook,
2002; Schools and Colleges, 2011b). The six academic units comprised approximately
850 faculty members in fall 2010, which is when the most recent data were available.
Among these faculty members were approximately 460 full-time faculty and 400 part-
time faculty (IPU, 2011a). From 2005 to 2010, faculty statistics at IPU reflect large
numbers of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty. Further, IPU statistics indicated that the
full-time, non-tenure-track faculty group was consistently larger than the tenure-track
faculty group (National Center for Educational Statistics [NCES], 2010). Figure 1
illustrates the full-time faculty composition of IPU from 2005-2010.

63
Figure 1. Full-time faculty composition of IPU from 2005-2010 (NCES, 2010).
Results of an annual AAUP survey on the economic status of the profession from
2010-2011, report that women are still more likely to assume full-time, non-tenure-track
faculty positions than men nationally. Although results indicate some progress towards
equity, women are still disproportionately found in lower-ranked faculty positions. The
report also noted that the private-independent and religiously affiliated sectors saw the
most rapid increase in the number of non-tenure-track and tenured positions (AAUP,
2011). These results are reflected within the IPU academic community. In 2010, of the
460 full-time faculty, there were approximately 75 non-tenure-track. Of those 70,
approximately 40 were women, compared to 30 men (NCES, 2010).
As a medium-size, private institution, IPU has the ability to reflect characteristics
conducive to teamwork as well as provide support for processes that are inclusive for
shared governance and decision-making. In a survey of 86 four-year institutions
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Tenured
Tenure-Track
Non-Tenure-Track

64
conducted by Baldwin and Chronister (2001), data revealed that private institutions were
more likely than public institutions to permit full-time, non-tenure-track faculty
participation in department committees (89% vs. 77%) and participation in the senate or
its equivalent (51% vs. 47%). In addition, private institutions were more disposed to
provide this faculty group with voting privileges on departmental matters (82% vs. 58%)
and institutional matters (78% vs. 55%) as well (p. 57). Given that the context for this
case study is critical to understanding the phenomena, this data renders IPU an ideal
setting for this study.
Participants
The participants for this study were drawn from the School of Education (SOE) as
well as the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences (CLAS) at IPU. The SOE and CLAS
were chosen because their faculty composition is a representation of the shift in the
academic workforce cited in the literature: a majority representation by the full-time,
non-tenure-track faculty group and smaller representation of tenured and tenure-track
faculty. These two academic units, SOE and CLAS, provided approximately 300
potential participants. To further narrow the participant pool, departments were selected
within the SOE and CLAS that were also representative of the shift in the academic
workforce. The departments with the largest percentage of full-time, non-tenure-track
faculty were the Department of Education and the Department of English. Full-time,
non-tenure-track faculty comprised 56% of Department of Education faculty and 64% of
Department of English faculty. Figure 2 illustrates the faculty composition within each
of the academic departments (IPU, 2011a). It is important to note that, not only do these

65
departments represent larger full-time, non-tenure-track faculty groups, but they are also
the largest departments within each academic unit.
Figure 2. Faculty composition of Department of Education and English (IPU, 2011a).
As the largest departments within each academic unit, the gender demographics of
the departments somewhat resemble that of the institution. Within the Departments of
Education and English, women outnumber the men, 65% to 35%, respectively within
Education, and 57% to 43%, respectively within English. Women also outnumber the
men across almost each full-time, faculty appointment type. Within the Department of
Education, 80% to 20% tenured, 50% to 50% tenure-track, and 56% to 44% non-tenure-
track faculty. Within the Department of English, 58% to 42% tenured, 100% male in
tenure-track, and 61% to 39% non-tenure-track faculty. Although women within the
Department of Education and English are largely represented within the full-time, non-
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Education English
Tenured
Tenure-Track
Full-Time, Non-Tenure-
Track

66
tenure-track position, they are also represented in large numbers for the other
appointment types as well.
For assistance in finding potential participants, I contacted an influential and well-
liked faculty member in the Department of English. A former employee of IPU
identified this individual as a highly respected faculty member at IPU. In addition to
serving the institution as a full-time, non-tenure-track faculty member for over 30 years,
she was also elected as the president of the Faculty Senate approximately five years ago.
Through a Referral Request Email (Appendix A), the faculty member was asked to
identify individuals who had experience in governance and decision making at IPU and
could provide multiple and meaningful perspectives on the process. She referred most
participants from the Department of English and a few participants from the Department
of Education, but thought it best that referrals from the latter department be made by
someone from within the department. Upon her recommendation, I contacted an
influential and well-liked faculty member from the Department of Education. He also
was asked to identify individuals who had experience in governance and decision making
and who could provide multiple and meaningful perspectives on the process. He was
able to refer potential participants from within his department. Once participants from
each Department were chosen, a letter inviting each one to participate (Appendix B) was
sent via email. Upon agreeing to participate in the study, each participant was sent an
information sheet (Appendix C) that outlined specific details about this study.
Participation was requested from a total of 30 individuals, 16 from the
Department of Education and 14 from the Department of English. Of these, five

67
individuals from the Department of English and six from the Department of Education
agreed to participate, which provided a total of 11 participants. Participants included two
administrators, each of whom also held a tenured faculty position, as well as two tenured
and seven full-time, non-tenure-track faculty. From the full-time, non-tenure-track
faculty, there were four senior lecturers and three lecturers. Senior lecturers hold
continuing appointments and have held a Lecturer position for a minimum of nine years.
Lecturers hold appointments that are renewable every three years. Lecturers are eligible
for promotion to Senior Lecturer in their ninth year at IPU. A more detailed description
of the Senior Lecturer and Lecturer appointments is found in Chapter Four. Although
several attempts were made to communicate with the three tenure-track faculty members,
two in the Department of Education and one in the Department of English, none was
available to participate.
Several of the participants from each department, whether tenured or non-tenure-
track, held additional responsibilities beyond their faculty positions. Three of the five
participants from the Department of English held associate provost or chair positions. In
addition, two of these three individuals also held director positions. From the
Department of Education, five of the six participants held a director or coordinator
position. For the purposes of this study, it is important to note the various roles and
responsibilities for which non-tenure-track faculty are eligible to fulfill within the
department as well as the institution. This reflects an openness to their participation and
a commitment to value their knowledge and expertise.

68
The five participants from the Department of English have a significant number of
years at the institution. Three have been at IPU for at least 20 years, and two for over 30
years. The six participants from the Department of Education have worked at IPU for
slightly shorter amounts of time. Four have been at IPU for 5 to 15 years and two for
over 20 years. These short terms are reflective of their full-time status at IPU. Table 1
presents the participants’ institutional affiliations.
Table 1
Participant Institutional Affiliations
Department Role Rank
English Institutional Leader Tenured
English Faculty Tenured
English Faculty Senior Lecturer
English Faculty Senior Lecturer
English Faculty Senior Lecturer
Education Institutional Leader Tenured
Education Faculty Tenured
Education Faculty Senior Lecturer
Education Faculty Lecturer
Education Faculty Lecturer
Education Faculty Lecturer

Complete confidentiality of participants was maintained at all times. In addition,
since this study aimed to understand the impact of inclusion in governance and
participation in decision-making, little to no threat was expected for the participants. The
one potential ethical conflict for certain participants would have been if their perception
of inclusion differs from their actual inclusion and participation. This might have created
unforeseen feelings of frustration and discomfort. Despite this potential conflict, the
researcher thought that the likely benefits far outweighed the potential discomforts.
To gain a deeper understanding of the history and transformation of governance
practices at IPU, the researcher also spoke with a member of the Provost’s Office.

69
Contacting this specific Assistant Vice Provost was a recommendation made by a study
participant. This Assistant Vice Provost was identified as someone who had knowledge
of the transformation governance practices at IPU had undergone; given his role in
academic and faculty affairs. The researcher spoke with the Assistant Vice Provost, via
telephone, and he discussed the history as well as the various transformations governance
practices have had over time.
Data Collection
Qualitative research entails the collection of data from multiple sources, which is
known as triangulation. Multiple sources of information enhance the trustworthiness of
the data and provide a comprehensive perspective. Further, the use of different data
sources provides the opportunity to validate and crosscheck findings (Patton, 2002). This
study utilized both document analysis and semi-structured interviews.
Documentary data are particularly good sources for a case study because they
ground a study in the context of the problem that is being investigated (Merriam, 2001).
In addition, documentary data are objective; the presence of the researcher does not alter
what is being studied (Merriam, 2001). For this study, relevant documents included the
Faculty Handbook, Protocols, Policies, and Procedures Handbook for the SOE and
CLAS; and information on the IPU website in regard to shared governance, decision
making, and full-time, non-tenure-track faculty was reviewed. These documents were
selected for their informative value in understanding how inclusion is defined by IPU and
how it manifests itself within and across decision-making groups. A detailed

70
demographic picture of the varying decision-making groups as well as the faculty within
each college or school was developed from the data.
The semi-structured interviews were guided by a researcher-developed interview
protocol. In this approach, the same key questions are asked of each participant while
allowing other topics to be explored as they arise within the discussion (Patton, 2002).
As stated by Patton, this “strategy offers the flexibility in probing and in determining
when it is appropriate to explore certain subjects in greater depth, or even to pose
questions about new areas of inquiry that were not originally anticipated in the
instrument’s development” (p. 347). The purpose of the semi-structured interview was to
create an informal, interactive, personal, shared process characterized through a caring,
trusting relationship between the participant and the researcher (Creswell, 1998). The
goal of the interviews was to capture detailed, rich data that would offer a reflective,
contextualized understanding of the participatory decision-making process and its effects
on organizational dynamics.
Each interview was scheduled to meet the needs of the participant and the
researcher and lasted approximately 60 minutes. It is important to note that the site for
this study was a considerable distance from where the researcher resides. As a result,
interviews were conducted via telephone. Every interview began with the researcher’s
providing a brief description of the study and informing each participant of the
confidentiality of his or her responses. All interviews were audio-recorded and kept in
the researcher’s sole possession.

71
Three different interview protocols were used: (a) for the college or school leader
(Appendix D); (b) for tenured and tenure-track faculty (Appendix E); and (c) for full-
time, non-tenure-track faculty (Appendix F). Three separate protocols were used because
the information sought depended on the participant type: leader, tenured faculty, or non-
tenure-track faculty. Institutional leaders were asked how they facilitate the inclusion
process, how they facilitate work in teams, how they develop relationships within teams
to provide a trusting environment, and how they perceive that the participation of full-
time, non-tenure-track faculty influences the decision-making process. Faculty were
asked questions about their perception of the decision-making environment, their
perception of their leaders’ role in facilitating that environment, their perceptions of full-
time, non-tenure-track faculty participation in governance and the decision making
process, how their participation influences decision making, and how it influences
organizational dynamics within the Department. In addition, full-time, non-tenure-track
faculty were asked to describe their level of participation in governance and decision-
making and how participation affects their perspective of their role within the team and
organization. In order to ensure the accuracy and trustworthiness of the interview data,
notes capturing the conversation were written immediately after the interview. Each
interview was summarized and notable statements were highlighted.
It is important to note, that prior to engaging in the data collection process, the
researcher mapped the governance structures of both her institution as well as IPU. A
diagram of the overall structure of governance for each site was established. The overall
structure was then organized into its various component parts including institutional

72
committees, faculty senate committees, as well as academic unit committees. The
purpose for this activity was to broaden her understanding of governance structures and
how institutions vary in their configuration. It also helped the researcher gain an
understanding of the various objectives for governance committees and the types of
decisions each group could potentially engage in.
Data Analysis
Data analysis is the process of making meaning from the data. It involves
consolidating, reducing, and interpreting what participants have said and what the
researcher has seen and read (Merriam, 2001; Patton, 2002). The goal for data analysis in
a case study is to develop an understanding of a phenomenon’s context, characteristics,
and meaning for those involved (Merriam, 2001).
Document analysis grounds a study in the context of the problem that is being
investigated (Merriam, 2001). For this reason, the researcher engaged in analysis of the
documentary data before she conducted interviews. Documents, which included
handbooks and records, were read and coded for emerging themes and patterns, using a
researcher-developed template (Appendix G). This enabled the researcher to understand
the governance structures in place at the institution, which faculty appointment types
were included within the governance structures, and the level of inclusion and the amount
of responsibility afforded to each of the included faculty appointment types. By gaining
this understanding, it also supported the researcher while conducting interviews. The
researcher was able to identify consistencies or inconsistencies between the prescribed
structures and the perceptions of the various participants.

73
Analysis of participant interviews provided the opportunity to interpret each
participants experience as well as to understand the relationships that frame the context of
participation within their environment. Through the simultaneous gathering and ensuing
analysis of interview data, the researcher was able to identify, interpret, and understand
the perspectives and perceptions of the participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty
and those involved in shared governance and decision making at IPU. Furthermore, the
researcher was able to analyze how their participation manifested itself within decision-
making processes as well as the subsequent influence it had on organizational dynamics.
During the data collection process, the researcher actively read, analyzed, and
annotated information. To assist in this process, a data table was developed for each
research question. Each table included the questions from the interview protocol that
specifically addressed the research question. Participants were listed and arranged on the
table per appointment type. Highlights from participant responses were added to the
table as each question on the protocol was analyzed. Upon completing the data table, the
researcher was able to analyze participant responses by a single protocol question and
across each faculty appointment type. This was beneficial in identifying consistencies
and inconsistencies within and across appointment types, as well as from the
documentary data.
Through the annotation process, the researcher described, classified, and
interpreted information as well as looked for categories or themes within the information.
While establishing categories and themes, the researcher developed a concept map for
each research question. The maps were created to represent the emerging themes within

74
each research question and to assist the researcher in organizing the elements contributing
to each identified theme. Further analysis revealed relationships between and among the
various themes that emerged. As part of the process, the researcher repeated several
aspects of analysis at varying times until a comprehensive interpretation was reached
(Creswell, 1998).
The qualitative approach calls for simultaneous gathering and analyzing of data
(Creswell, 1998; Merriam, 2001). This simultaneous process enabled the researcher to
work effectively with the volumes of data accumulated. In addition, the quality of
subsequent data gathering was enhanced by the researcher’s review and analysis of the
documents. Once the data from the documents and participant interviews were analyzed
separately, the data and the analyses were then compared. This provided a means to
determine both consistencies and inconsistencies between perceptions and reality. It also
provided the opportunity to map challenges with shared governance between and across
varying levels within the institution, from the department up through the institutional
level.
Role of the Researcher
The social nature of qualitative research and the human being as the instrument of
data collection create the opportunity for the researcher’s past experiences, biases,
prejudices, and inclinations to shape the interpretation of the data (Creswell, 1998). It is
therefore critical that the researcher is aware of and reflects on perspectives, perceptions,
and beliefs that could influence the study (Creswell, 1998; Merriam, 2001; Patton, 2002).
The researcher has worked as a program administrator in higher education for the past

75
five years. Although the researcher’s time in higher education has been brief, she has
observed the influence that tenured and tenure-track faculty have in governance and
academic matters. The researcher has also witnessed the inconsistency of the
participation of non-tenure-track faculty in such matters as well as the “us-versus-them”
environment of a non-inclusive setting.
Although the institution in which the researcher works does not offer inclusion for
non-tenure-track faculty members in institutional matters, the college in which she works
does offer limited participation. The researcher has witnessed the effects of their
inclusion in the process and its effects on the interpersonal dynamics of the faculty.
When non-tenure-track faculty participates, they feel they have a voice and an investment
within the discussion. Through these shared discussions, faculty comes to a better
understanding of one another. The researcher also has witnessed the disappointment and
confusion of non-tenure-track faculty when they are excluded. As a program
administrator, the researcher has attempted to include individuals, regardless of their
faculty appointment status, in discussions and decision making. These individuals have
knowledge about particular issues, they contribute varying perspectives and ideas, and
they ultimately may be affected by a particular decision that is being made. Because the
researcher values and respects the knowledge and experience that these individuals may
bring to the discussion, she feels that it is important to include them.
The researcher approached this study with the knowledge and understanding that
she has perspectives, perceptions, beliefs, and biases related to the research topic. These
are due to the researcher’s personal experiences and professional ideology. Nevertheless,

76
the researcher was committed to exploring this issue in an unbiased and objective
manner. The researcher sought to understand how inclusion in shared governance, when
it is institutionalized as an accepted practice, influences the decision-making process and
the experiences of those involved.
Limitations of the Study
This study presented several potential limitations. First, the concept of inclusion
of non-tenure-track faculty in governance is an emerging one, i.e., very few institutions
engage in inclusive practices for this faculty group. This significantly reduced the
options for a study site. A further limitation was the lack of proximity of the researcher
to the study site. As a result of the distance, interviews were conducted over the phone.
While phone interviews provide the ability to discuss and gather information regarding
the experiences and perceptions of individuals, they did not provide the opportunity to
build rapport with the participant or to observe informal cues that may occur during an
in-person interview.
Another limitation of the study was its focus on full-time, non-tenure-track
faculty. Although non-tenure-track faculty is comprised of full- and part-time faculty,
and the number of part-time faculty has also increased, full-time faculty members are
fully committed to the institution. Whereas part-time faculty may hold positions across
multiple institutions, full-time faculty members hold positions at a single institution. In
addition, full-time faculty members are involved in the day-to-day operations of the
institution. Of the two faculty groups, full-time faculty members are also the most
accessible. It was important to understand how inclusion of this committed and

77
accessible faculty group influenced the shared governance process before extending
inclusion to part-time faculty.
Further limitations of the study may be associated with the type of institution
selected. A medium-size institution was selected for this study, and, as such, the results
of this study may not be generalizable to smaller or larger institutions. The institution
also is a private one, and its ability to implement a change in practices generally does not
receive challenges from the external environment. Public institutions, in their efforts to
effect change, may, however, be subject to such challenges.
Despite these potential limitations, the researcher was confident that the findings
would be transferrable to a number of institutions. Depending on institution size and the
complexity of organizational dynamics present, implementing inclusionary practices may
take longer at some institutions than at others. In any case, the findings provide a rich,
in-depth description of perceptions of the inclusion of non-tenure-track faculty in
governance, information that can be valuable to institutions who wish to implement such
a change in their governance.
Trustworthiness
Qualitative research findings are unique to each study and cannot be duplicated.
As such, the reliability and trustworthiness of qualitative data are of critical importance
(Creswell, 1998; Merriam, 2001). The following verification strategies were used to
ensure the reliability and trustworthiness of the data in this study: triangulation, clarifying
researcher bias, and rich, thick description.

78
Triangulation is the use of multiple resources for data collection. As several
researchers have noted, the use of multiple sources in the data collection process can help
to ensure trustworthiness of the data as it provides for different perspectives on an issue
and it can create a clearer, deeper picture of the focus of the study (Creswell, 1998;
Merriam, 2001; Patton, 2002). In this study, the use of both document analysis and semi-
structured interviews provided triangulation of the data. These multiple methods of data
collection provided a means by which to determine both consistencies and
inconsistencies across the data in the study.
Clarifying researcher bias was the second verification strategy used in this study.
As was discussed in detail in the section on the Role of the Researcher, the researcher
was aware of and reflected on her biases. An understanding of the researcher’s position
and any biases or assumptions that might have impacted the study were identified
(Creswell, 2002; Merriam, 2001). The researcher acknowledged that her perspectives,
perceptions, and beliefs could potentially influence the interpretation of the data collected
in the study. In acknowledging and becoming aware of her biases, the researcher adopted
a stance of neutrality with regard to the issue studied. Throughout the data coding and
analysis process, her goal was to remain objective and committed to understanding the
perspectives, perceptions, and beliefs of the study participants. To that end, the
researcher created data tables and graphic organizers based on the interviews and
reviewed the exact words spoken by the participants to ensure that a general sense of the
information was the basis of drawing conclusions. Furthermore, in addition to the data
tables and graphic organizers created, the researcher wrote notes immediately after each

79
interview. This helped the researcher summarize the interview and highlight notable
statements made by each participant. Engaging in this immediate action helped to ensure
the accuracy and reliability of the interview data (Patton, 2002).
Finally, rich, thick description was the third verification strategy used. Rich, thick
description provides an opportunity for the reader to determine how closely their
circumstance matches that of the study site. It assists the reader in making decisions
about potential transferability of the findings (Creswell, 1998; Merriam, 2001). The
detailed descriptions found in this study included the history and transformation of
governance, the multiple factors that contribute to the institutional context, current
governance practices, and faculty structures. These descriptions allow the administration
at institutions in similar environments to determine the extent to which the participatory
process and practices implemented at the study site could be transferred to that
institution. The rich, thick description found in this case study should provide enough
information to others to apply some of the findings to their institution.
Each of these verification strategies was intended to provide an opportunity to
gain feedback and ensure the reliability and trustworthiness in which data was collected,
analyzed, and then interpreted. Thus confirming the significance of the study and its
transferability to the field.
Conclusion
This chapter presented the research design and method of inquiry for the study,
including site and participant selection, data collection, analysis, and interpretation for the
case study. Document analysis and semi-structured interviews provided triangulation of

80
the data. The role of the researcher, including her biases and how they affected her role,
were discussed. Finally, the limitations of the study and the strategies used to ensure the
trustworthiness of the data were presented.

81
CHAPTER FOUR: THE FINDINGS
The purpose of this qualitative study was to develop an understanding of the
experiences and perceptions of various stakeholders in regard to the inclusion and
participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in shared governance and decision-
making. In addition, the study sought to identify various stakeholders’ perceptions of
how the participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty influences organizational
dynamics. Although governance and decision-making occur at the institutional,
academic college, and departmental level, the focus of this study was at the academic
college and departmental level.
Chapter Overview
In this chapter, I will first establish context and provide a detailed description of
the institution that was explored in this study. This description will include an
explanation of the governance and faculty structures. Understanding the governance and
faculty structures of the institution will provide a framework for the structures within
each academic college and department. In addition to understanding these institutional
structures, it is important to understand the environment in which these structures
function. As noted in the literature, there is an interdependent relationship between the
institutional structures and the environment (Kezar, 2004). Institutional structures
combined with a participative environment provide the context by which participatory
decision-making can flourish.
After establishing the context for the study, I will present the study findings,
which will be organized according to each research question. For each research question,

82
the themes identified from the data will be discussed. After establishing the themes for
each research question, I will summarize the study findings. Presented within the
summary is a model that was developed to conceptualize the study findings. Finally, I
provide a conclusion.
Inclusive Practices University
Inclusive Practices University (IPU) is a medium-sized, private, independent,
comprehensive, not-for-profit institution located in an urban city. As a long-standing,
higher education institution, IPU prides itself on a more than 450-year-tradition of
educating the whole person. The University values academic quality, integrated learning,
commitment to students, a culture of service to local and global communities, diversity
and respect for others, and its faith tradition. The goal of the University is academic
excellence in a well-balanced human being (IPU Faculty Handbook, 2002).
IPU has an enrollment of approximately 9,000 students: 5,000 undergraduates and
4,000 graduates. There is one College and five Schools in which all of the degree
programs exist. Degree programs are provided through the College of Liberal Arts &
Sciences, the School of Education, the School of Business, the School of Engineering, the
School of Theology, and the School of Law. The College of Liberal Arts & Sciences
serves undergraduate students; the School of Education and the School of Law serve
graduate students; and the School of Business, the School of Engineering, and the School
of Theology serve both undergraduate and graduate students (IPU, 2011b).
Among the six academic units, there are approximately 850 faculty members,
which include 460 full-time and 400 part-time faculty. The College of Liberal Arts &

83
Sciences comprises approximately 52% of IPU’s full-time faculty, with a total of 240
full-time faculty members. The School of Education comprises 5% with 20 faculty
members, the School of Business contains 17% with 80 faculty members, the School of
Engineering encompasses 10% with 50 faculty members, the School of Theology
comprises 3% with 15 faculty members, and the School of Law holds 15% with 70
faculty members (IPU, 2011a). In 2010, among the 460 full-time faculty, 275 (60%)
were tenured, 80 (17%) were on the tenure-track, and 90 (20%) were on the non-tenure-
track (National Center for Education Statistics, 2009). The full-time, non-tenure track
faculty group is larger than the group of their tenure-track colleagues, which corresponds
to the literature that highlights the shift in the academic workforce.
Institutional Structures
Institutional structures, policies, and practices for governance and decision-
making are unique to each organization. To understand how individuals perceive and
participate within these structures, it is important to provide a context for the governance
practices at IPU and offer an understanding of the framework and decision-making
structures from which each academic college, and the departments within them, operates.
In addition, it will be critical to understand the various faculty groups on which
governance practices can depend. Upon understanding the various faculty groups, it will
be important to establish which faculty group is included and, therefore, eligible to
participate within the identified structures. The following provides a description of the
governance and faculty structures within IPU.

84
Governance practices. The governance system at IPU recognizes that private
universities are unique institutions that must follow a governance style that combines
elements of the participatory democratic model of politics and the hierarchical merit-
based model of business. The IPU governance system is founded on the following
principles:
• a collaborative model of shared governance;
• forums to include students, staff, faculty, and administration from within the
campus community;
• a set of six policy committees that bring together representatives from these
communities;
• a balance of elected and appointed (for interest and expertise) representatives
to make the system both efficient and representative;
• structures of communication to ensure participation, feedback, and timely
information; and
• regular and broadly participatory opportunities for critical appraisal and
assessment (IPU Faculty Handbook, 2002; University Committees, 2008a;
University Policy and Practice Committees Charter, 2008b).
By design and principle, the governance system at IPU provides the opportunity for
collaboration, participation, and inclusion of various stakeholders within the institution.
Document analysis and participant interviews revealed that the opportunity for
collaboration, participation, and inclusion of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in
governance has occurred over time and somewhat informally. Through analysis of the

85
various data, inclusion of this faculty group in governance would have begun between
1974 and 1980. A member of the Provost’s Office noted:
There has never really been a formal discussion or policy for the participation of
full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in governance. Their participation has
occurred over time and has been informal. They were formally included as
members of the Faculty Senate approximately 30 years ago.

One of the participants for this study, a full-time, non-tenure-track faculty
member, was hired in mid-1970 and has been at IPU for over 35 years. When asked
about the history of governance and the inclusion of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty at
IPU, he stated, “It changed, it increased . . . It happened right at the turn of 1980. It was
maybe even a little bit before that; more like 1977 that the rule changed.” A tenured
faculty member who began her faculty role at IPU as a lecturer commented:
As far as I know, it goes back since before I was hired here [in 1982]. My
hypothesis, my guess, is that I think until the 70s [IPU] was able to staff most of
the courses with tenure-stream faculty. I think it was only in the 70s that there
was growth that resulted in the need for lecturers. I think in the early days it was
kind of like, if they're good enough to teach, then they are good enough to be a
part of the governance process, but that's only speculation. It's always been that
way from the beginning of my being here. I'm pretty sure I've always been part of
the Faculty Senate.

A full-time, non-tenure-track faculty member who has been at IPU for over 30
years commented:
To my knowledge, because I can't speak for any time before 1980 when I first
started at [IPU], the full-time faculty always had a voting right in the Faculty
Senate. When I first began in 1984, for example, all of us who were full-time
were members of the Faculty Senate and there was no separate organizational
structure . . . It was just all of the faculty were able to meet at the same time if
they so chose because the faculty was smaller. I was surprised to learn that I had
the same voting rights as, say, the person that was on tenure track or the tenured
faculty . . . all the full-time were allowed to have a vote in anything that came up
as an issue on the Faculty Senate. The way in which the lectures were not
included was, of course, an inability to serve on rank and tenure committees

86
because only tenured faculty could serve on rank and tenured committees. I was
told at the time that we could serve on any other university level committee as
well as those on a college or a department level.

Through these accounts, it is evident that inclusion of full-time, non-tenure-track
faculty began between 1974 and 1980. As discussed in a later section, over time, several
events within the academic units and their faculty composition have significantly
influenced and developed opportunities for participation in governance by full-time, non-
tenure-track faculty. Participation in the structures described here were reflective of
situations that occurred within the academic units and their respective departments.
There are four kinds of internal committees through which a great deal of the
University business is conducted. These committees include the University governance
committees, Faculty Senate committees, committees mandated by civil law, and other
standing and ad hoc committees (IPU Faculty Handbook, 2002; University Committees,
2008a). University governance issues are routed primarily through the University
governance and Faculty Senate committees.
Major University policy issues are routed through University-level committees
whose members are appointed by the University Governance Coordinating Committee
(UGCC). The UGCC coordinates the work of the six University Policy and Practice
Committees (UPPCs) and functions as a process monitor to ensure that proper
governance procedures are followed. In Table 2, the six UPPCs are identified, and a brief
description of each of their purposes is presented (IPU University Committees, 2008a).

87
Table 2
University Policy and Practice Committees at Inclusive Practices University
UPPC Purpose
Academic Affairs Academic programs; proposals for new majors, minors,
or changes in departments; and assessment projects
Faculty Affairs Faculty development, salaries, benefits, sabbatical leaves,
hiring, promotion, and judicial procedures
Staff Affairs Staff development, salaries, benefits, changes to the Staff
Policy Manual, and conflict resolution procedures
Student Affairs Student services, student life, current and proposed
programs
University Budget Council University budget and long-range financial planning
Planning Action Council Long-range planning for the University

Appointments by the UGCC for membership on a UPPC are made on the basis of
competence and representation of constituencies. The membership of each UPPC is
defined by the charge of each committee and the expertise as well as the perspectives
required for it to function effectively. Therefore, membership on a UPPC could vary
every time, depending on the charge and direction the committee will take. Among the
faculty groups, full-time, non-tenure-track faculty are eligible to participate in each of the
committees, with the exception of the Staff Affairs Committee, which is comprised of
staff members only.
The purpose of the Faculty Senate is to “develop and express the opinion of the
faculty on academic and professional matters, to facilitate participation of the faculty in
forming policies of the University, and to make the collective experience and knowledge
of the faculty available to the President” (IPU Faculty Handbook, 2002, Section 2.10).
To that end, the Faculty Senate consists of all tenured, tenure-track, and full-time, non-
tenure-track faculty. Exceptions to the Faculty Senate composition include

88
administrators at or above the level of dean of a school or college as well as faculty on
less than half-time appointments and who do not receive an academic year contract.
Committees of the Faculty Senate include Rank and Tenure Committees at the
institutional and academic unit level, Committees on Promotion to Senior Lecturer at the
academic unit level, Grievance Committees at the academic unit level, and the Faculty
Judicial Board.
Faculty structures. IPU has four broad categories for faculty, which include
tenured and tenure-track faculty, faculty with renewable-term or continuing
appointments, faculty with fixed-term appointments, and faculty with other kinds of
appointments. Of these categories, those that reflect full-time, year-to-year appointments
include tenured and tenure-track as well as faculty with renewable-term or continuing
appointments. Because this study focused solely on full-time, non-tenure-track faculty,
the description that follows is reflective of the full-time faculty categories at IPU.
Tenured and tenure-track faculty consist of those who hold appointments at the
rank of Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor, and Acting Assistant
Professor. The educational requirement for tenured and tenure-track faculty is a
doctorate or other appropriate terminal degree. Full-time, non-tenure-track faculty hold a
renewable-term or continuing appointment at the rank of Lecturer or Senior Lecturer.
Both appointments are assigned for a full academic year rather than an academic term,
require a doctorate or other appropriate terminal degree, and are primarily for teaching
(IPU Faculty Handbook, 2002; College Protocols, Policies, and Procedures, 2011c;
School of Education Protocols, Policies, & Procedures, 2011d).

89
A Lecturer holds a renewable-term appointment, and a Senior Lecturer holds a
continuing appointment. Lecturer appointments are made for an initial term of three
years, a second term of three years, and subsequent terms of six years. The renewal of a
Lecturer appointment for second and subsequent terms is contingent on superior
performance, persistent programmatic need, and availability of funds (IPU Faculty
Handbook, 2002). A Senior Lecturer holds a full-time continuing appointment and shall
have a minimum of nine years of full-time service as a Lecturer at IPU. It is important to
note that promotion to Senior Lecturer is not automatically granted for length of service
as a Lecturer but entails an application process that demonstrates recognition of an
exemplary record of achievement, including a record of extraordinary teaching as a
Lecturer. As a continuing appointment, Senior Lecturers are eligible for sabbaticals (IPU
Faculty Handbook, 2002; College Protocols, Policies, and Procedures, 2011c; School of
Education Protocols, Policies, & Procedures, 2011d).
All full-time faculty duties, functions, and expectations are focused in three areas:
teaching, professional activity, and service. Teaching reflects the number of courses
assigned and taught and all aspects involved in teaching a course (i.e., developing syllabi,
assignments, readings, course schedule, developing appropriate teaching preparations).
Teaching also includes demonstrating a command of the faculty member’s discipline and
skill in presenting it effectively, using appropriate measures of student performance,
posting and maintaining regular office hours, serving as an advisor to assigned students,
and developing courses for which the faculty member is responsible and contributes to
general curriculum development in the relevant degree programs. Professional activity

90
supports teaching excellence in various ways. This includes attending professional
conferences, presentations at professional conferences, and publications related to the
discipline and/or pedagogy. Finally, service occurs at the department, College, and
University levels. It includes but is not limited to fostering and advancing the mission
and goals of the department, the University, or the profession through contributions other
than teaching and professional activity or creative work such as service on committees,
participation in professional organizations and activities, and community service
performed in virtue of the faculty member’s professional expertise or association with the
University.
Each of these areas, teaching, professional activity, and service, accounts for a
percentage of a faculty member’s duties, functions, and expectations. For tenured and
tenure-track faculty, teaching accounts for 40%, professional activity is 40%, and service
accounts for the remaining 20%. For Senior Lecturers and Lecturers, teaching accounts
for 70%, professional activity is 15%, and service accounts for the remaining 15%. This
corresponds to the literature that states that full-time, non-tenure-track faculty are hired
primarily for teaching (Baldwin & Chronister, 2001; Kezar et al., 2006c). Table 3
provides an overview of the varying governance and Faculty Senate committees and the
eligibility of tenured (T), tenure-track faculty (TT), Senior Lectures (SL), and Lectures
(L) to serve on each.

91
Table 3
Faculty Eligibility to Participate in Governance and Faculty Senate Committees
Governance Level Faculty Rank
Institution College/School T TT SL L
University Governance Coordinating
Committee
X X X X
University Policy and Practice
Committees
X X X X
Academic Affairs X X X
Faculty Affairs X X X
Staff Affairs X
Student Affairs X X X X
University Budget Council X X X X
Planning Action Council X X X X X
Faculty Senate X X X X X
Committee on Rank and Tenure X X X
Committees on Rank and Tenure X X X
Committees on Promotion to Senior
Lecturer
X X X X
Grievance Committees X X X X
Faculty Judicial Board X X X X

A Participatory Environment
As noted in the literature, there is an interdependent relationship between
institutional structures and the environment (Kezar, 2004). The structures provide a basis
by which the environment can flourish. In turn, the environment then provides a platform
by which structures can be utilized successfully. The structures and environment
presented within an institution shapes the way in which the members of the institution
work, behave, make decisions, build communities, and value and believe in the mission
and vision of the institution. As such, this interdependent relationship depends largely on

92
the values and beliefs within an institution and its members. These values are critical in
designing the structures as well as shaping the environment where participation of full-
time, non-tenure-track faculty is valued and supported by the institution and its members.
As noted in the literature, institutional values become established as beliefs and
reflect the shared values of the members within the institution (Bess & Dee, 2008c). It is
important to recognize that the inclusive and participative structures and practices for
full-time, non-tenure-track faculty at IPU are indicative of the value of full-time, non-
tenure-track faculty as well as the value of their knowledge, expertise, voice, and
perspective. Establishing this value message has been a custom of IPU for over 30 years.
The following section will demonstrate how the values and beliefs within IPU
have transformed its institutional structures, environment, and overall practices over time.
The section also will provide a framework that was developed to illustrate the context at
IPU and describe how the current practices, shaped by values and beliefs, establish the
setting for participatory decision-making.
Transforming institutional practices. IPU and its respective academic units and
departments have historically made a commitment to the representation and support of
full-time, non-tenure-track faculty. Through the years, the full-time, non-tenure-track
position has gone through several transformations, demonstrating the value held for and
the relationships developed with full-time, non-tenure-track faculty.
As previously mentioned, full-time, non-tenure-track faculty were included in
governance and became members of the Faculty Senate sometime between 1974 and
1980. Prior to that, in 1970, the English Department played a central role in the

93
advancement of the full-time, non-tenure-track faculty position. In the early 1970s, the
policy at IPU was to hire lecturers for different lengths of time to meet the changing
needs of departments. These terms were no more than three years, to stay within AAUP
guidelines and avoid de facto tenure. Around 1975, the English Department Chair
recognized that there was an increasing demand for well-qualified, dedicated instructors.
Further, under the existing AAUP guidelines, he was faced with the possibility of being
forced to dismiss these well-qualified, dedicated, and highly valued instructors. As a
result, he petitioned for permanent lecturer positions within the Department. The petition
was approved, and the policy for “permanent” lecturers was established. Although the
Chair’s proposal was made to respond to a specific situation within a specific department,
departments within other academic units quickly adopted the policy. Other departments,
who also depended upon lecturers to teach, began to offer permanent positions that were
indefinitely renewable to instructors whom they valued (French, 1997). The setup of the
policy was significant in establishing the value of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty
within the institution, the academic units, and their respective departments. As one full-
time, non-tenure-track faculty member stated, “I was like a hired hand, and I think all of
us became less hired hands and more equal partners.” Establishing the value of full-time,
non-tenure-track faculty led to changing the faculty structure within the institution and
creating a renewable term, permanent faculty appointment.
The phenomenon of hiring permanent lecturers was taking place across the IPU
campus. The practice was becoming so prevalent that many thought it created a two-
tiered system; there was a significant discrepancy in salary between continuing lecturers

94
and tenure-track faculty and a noticeable percentage of the permanent lecturers were
women (French, 1997). Although some permanent lecturers were highly qualified for
tenure-track positions, they were not considered. As a result, in late 1980, IPU
administration decided to offer full-time, permanent lecturers who fulfilled certain
criteria–such as a terminal degree (PhD) and the support of their department–the
opportunity to convert their positions to tenure-track positions. This gave those lecturers
who wanted the opportunity of going through the tenure process the chance to do so.
Those lecturers that did not want to convert their position would continue as Senior
Lecturers and, in effect, have de facto tenure (French, 1997). This was once again a joint
effort in valuing and promoting full-time, non-tenure-track faculty positions.
One of the participants in this study was a lecturer at IPU when she pursued the
opportunity to convert to a tenured position. She began at IPU in 1982 as a lecturer in the
English Department and was offered the opportunity to convert to a tenure-track position
in 1991. As she recalled this opportunity, she noted:
When I was invited to roll into a tenure-stream position, the Dean at that time saw
big salary differences between Lecturers and tenure-stream faculty and also saw
that a number of Lecturers had virtually the same kind of qualifications as tenure-
stream faculty and therefore he opened up an opportunity for quite a few of our
faculty who had been hired as Lecturers to roll into tenure-stream positions.

She earned tenure and currently serves the institution as an Associate Professor,
Associate Provost, and Director. When asked to discuss her thoughts on this opportunity,
she commented:
[As a lecturer,] I was treated as a full member of the department, and there really
wasn't very much difference. This was in 1982. The only things that I was
excluded from were discussions about tenure and promotions for the tenure-
stream faculty. When I was invited to roll into a tenure-stream position, the dean

95
at that time saw big salary differences between lecturers and tenure-stream faculty
and also saw that a number of lecturers had virtually the same kind of
qualifications as tenure-stream faculty; and, therefore, he opened up an
opportunity for quite a few of our faculty who had been hired as lecturers to roll
into tenure-stream positions. For instance, our current Vice Provost was a lecturer
who was offered the opportunity to roll into a tenure-stream position.

At the time, lecturers within the English Department were not seen as different
from their tenure-track colleagues and, in turn, were treated as equals. When disparities
became apparent, the administration, in this case the Dean of the College of Liberal Arts
and Sciences, implemented change to recognize their value and regain fairness. Of
significant importance is that valuing and recognizing lecturers as knowledgeable
individuals and providing them with opportunities for advancement have proven
beneficial for the individual as well as the institution. In the comment made by the
Associate Provost, she described how she and a colleague, who currently serves as Vice
Provost, have prominent faculty and administrative positions. As they both began in
Lecturer positions, this makes a statement about the value the institution was placing in
their knowledge and skills. The value statements made by their promotion and success
also have contributed to the inclusive and participative environment. They have
established and affirmed the value that full-time, non-tenure-track faculty can offer when
provided the opportunity to participate.
In addition, faculty within all ranks have various opportunities to participate in
different aspects of governance and decision-making. Full-time, non-tenure-track faculty
have the opportunity to participate in various capacities at the department, academic unit,
and institutional levels (i.e., Committees, Task Forces, Faculty Senate, and UPPCs). The

96
only exceptions are that they are ineligible to serve on Rank and Tenure Committees or to
evaluate a colleague at a rank higher than theirs, tenured or tenure-track.
The full-time, non-tenure-track participants in this study have participated in
governance and decision-making as the President of the Faculty Senate, Chair of the
University Policy and Practice Committee on Student Affairs, member of the University
Policy and Practice Committee on Academic Affairs, member of the University Policy
and Practice Committee on Faculty Affairs, Chair and members of various institutional
and departmental level committees, directors of various institutional and departmental
level programs, members of the Curriculum Committee, and as members of Evaluative
Committees, to name a few. These opportunities provide for all faculty, tenured, tenure-
track, and full-time, non-tenure-track, to engage in shared discussions and decision-
making. In addition, by providing these opportunities for full-time, non-tenure-track
faculty to participate in governance and decision-making, it also provides the opportunity
for tenured and tenure-track faculty to focus on performing their research. As a Senior
Lecturer within the English Department noted:
One of the results of having Lecturers be able to serve in these various capacities
is that the people who are on the tenure-stream sometimes do not have to do the
sort of service the Lecturers are providing. Lecturers have a heavier part of their
evaluation on service than do tenure-stream when it comes to evaluations.
Because a Senior Lecturer, for example, is doing that, it means a tenure-track
person doesn't have to be the one who does it, which means the tenure-track
faculty are freed up to put their emphasis onto research, which is one of those
areas that is more heavily weighed for a tenure-stream person.

As an institution whose structures, practices, and values are inclusive of each full-time
faculty group, IPU facilitates the development of a participative environment.

97
Institutional structures combined with a participative environment, both of whom
are influenced through a system of values, provide the context by which participatory
decision-making can flourish. Figure 3 illustrates the institutional context present at IPU.
It provides a visual representation of the shared relationship between institutional
structures, a participative environment, and how values play a key element in both. It
demonstrates how this combined context develops participatory decision-making.

Figure 3. Institutional context present at Inclusive Practices University.
The interdependent relationship that influences institutional practices provides a
framework that the academic units and respective departments can follow. The academic
units and respective departments play a critical role in providing opportunities for, in
support of, and conducive to participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty. As the
results described below will demonstrate, administrators, such as Department Chairs,
have the ability to influence how, when, and to what degree participation occurs. They
also can influence the interactions, communication, and ideals among faculty. This
greatly contributes to the development of a participatory environment. The ability of
administrators to create these environments depends heavily on the values of and
relationships between tenured, tenure-track, and full-time, non-tenure-track faculty.

98
Further, multiple responses by the participants revealed that the environment can
influence participation, participation can influence decision-making, and decision-making
can then influence the environment. These factors are conducive to the process, are
promoted through the process, and ultimately reinforce the process.
The results will show that there is overall support for and a positive perception of
full-time, non-tenure-track faculty participation in School-level governance and decision-
making. However, it would be misleading to assume that, although structures are in
place and environments are participatory in nature, the process always works or
individuals are always willing to participate. As one Senior Lecturer commented,
“[Lecturers and Senior Lecturers] have the opportunity [to participate] . . . while
opportunity exists, it isn’t always sought.” In the following analysis, I will discuss
reasons noted for non-participation as well as challenges faced within the process.
Findings by Research Question
In the following sections, I provide themes that emerged from an analysis of the
data collected. The themes are organized and presented according to research question.
The two research questions are:
1. What are full-time, non-tenure-track faculty perceptions of their participation
in School-level decision-making?
2. How do various stakeholders in a School perceive the participation of full-
time, non-tenure-track faculty in School-level decision-making affect
organizational dynamics?

99
First, I will present the two themes that emerged from Research Question 1.
These include the importance of the leadership role as well as building relationships and
promoting shared responsibility. Next, I will present three themes that emerged from the
second research question. These include an increase in knowledge capacity, overall
improved organizational dynamics, and diminishing traditional systems of governance.
Upon establishing the themes for each research question, I summarize the study findings.
Within the summary, a diagram that demonstrates the relationship between the study
findings is presented. Finally, I will provide a conclusion.
Perceptions of Participation in Decision Making
The purpose of Research Question 1 was to develop an understanding of the
perceptions of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty of their participation in School-level
decision-making. To that end, full-time, non-tenure-track faculty were asked to describe
their involvement in governance and decision-making, how they perceive their
participation in decision-making contributes to the decision-making process, and how
their participation has influenced their experience as a faculty member. In addition, they
were asked to describe factors that might influence their choice to participate as well as
the degree to which they would voice their position. An analysis of the responses
revealed two common themes. The first theme that emerged was the importance of
leadership in creating a participatory environment. The second theme focused on how
participatory decision-making builds relationships and promotes shared responsibility.
The following provides an analysis of participant responses and is organized by theme.

100
Importance of the Leadership Role
Full-time, non-tenure-track faculty placed an emphasis on the importance of
leadership and the role that an institutional leader plays in the participatory decision-
making process. The institutional leader, whether at the departmental, academic college,
or institutional level, plays a critical role in creating an environment conducive for and
supportive of inclusion and participation. The administrator emphasizes the importance
of relationships and the quality of interactions between individuals. It is important to
note that, although Research Question 1 reflects the perceptions of full-time, non-tenure-
track faculty, the administrators and tenured faculty participants also emphasized the
importance of the leadership role of the institutional leader. Of the 11 participants, seven
of them identified leadership and the role of the leader, or administrator, as critical to the
participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in decision-making. The
administrator, as someone in a position of power, was instrumental in creating
opportunities for equal participation, building relationships among individuals, bringing
the voice of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty to the forefront, and valuing their multiple
voices and diverse thoughts. One of the tenured faculty participants provided the
following example:
The Faculty Affairs Policy [and Practice] Committee is quite important; and, for
the first time this year, on the recommendation of several of us, the Faculty
Affairs Committee now has a lecturer on it, a non-tenure-track faculty member.
To my knowledge, I don't think there's a policy that says only tenure-track faculty
can serve on Faculty Affairs, but it has been the practice. This year, quite
intentionally, in a kind of representational way, the Committee along with the
administrator, who is the administration's representative on that Committee, made
a really intentional decision to include a non-tenure-track faculty member on the
Policy [and Practice] Committee. That was really important. It surfaced because
on a number of policies you have a bunch of tenure-track faculty sitting around

101
discussing those policies that affect non-tenure-track faculty. I think for about
two years we were sort of saying there's something really wrong with this picture.
We're bringing them in as consultants, and we're charging them as a task force to
go find out what their colleagues think and they come back to us, and why are we
doing this? Why wouldn't they be in the room having a discussion about this?
That's an important change.

This was a significant effort by administrators to bring full-time, non-tenure-track faculty
and their voices to the table, especially when the discussion and policy decisions involve
and affect them.
Two of the participants noted that participation is “leader dependent.” They
explained that full-time, non-tenure-track faculty involvement is not automatic.
Participation is dependent on who happens to be the Dean or Department Chair and how
he or she can provide opportunities for, encourage involvement in, and facilitate the
participatory process. A Lecturer from within the Education Department commented,
“Our Department Chair began his whole journey with an attitude of ‘I am one of you.
This will always be a round table and there is no head. We're all heads.’” The tenured
faculty participant within the Education Department commented:
There have been times where [full-time, non-tenure-track faculty] have been
looked at and treated as equal as tenured and tenure-track [faculty]. At times,
they were paid no attention to whatsoever, not even invited to the faculty
meetings. Depends on whoever is in leadership.

Ultimately, participants identified the leader, or the administrator in a position of power,
as essential in creating an environment conducive for and supportive of inclusion and
participation.
Institutional leaders play a significant role in providing opportunities for
participation and supporting full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in the participatory

102
process. Full-time, non-tenure-track faculty are included in all faculty meetings and
participate in all discussions and decisions. These faculty also participate in curriculum
and instruction, hiring, and policy committee decisions. Administrators have made a
concerted effort to ensure that full-time, non-tenure-track faculty are involved, informed,
and have a voice in discussions and decisions that are made. The administrator from the
English Department commented:
The other thing that I think is really important began before I was chair and has
continued since I was chair, is that in the English department, at least the
lecturers, are part of discussions on curriculum. They are a part of committees . . .
and they're valued for their work. I think that's pretty important. It's not just to
come in and teach a class and go away, but really being a part of the Department.

The administrator from the Education Department noted:
So long as the rules of engagement are clear, people are willing to engage in the
conversation, to vote, and to not feel that they have been cheated . . . Clarification,
I think, went a long way towards making everyone feel at peace with whatever the
outcome of a decision was. The good thing is that the nature of the conversations
has been such that for the most part we have been able to arrive at unanimous
decisions, after extended conversations, without having to necessarily feel that
there is a split between the views of the non-tenure-track versus the tenure-track
[faculty].

The administrators’ ensuring that full-time, non-tenure-track faculty are involved in
decisions provides for transparency in decision-making and emphasizes that they value
the input from all Department members. As a Lecturer from the Education Department
commented, “[Administration] is proactive in being inclusive and transparent (i.e., all
emails sent to everyone, not rank specific) . . . feel we're always being included in
changes that might be occurring or upcoming decisions that need to be made. They're
very good about communicating.”

103
A few other faculty commented that full-time, non-tenure-track faculty
participation had “obliterated” faculty ranks and that there was equality across the faculty
at meetings. The administrator from the English Department stated, “One of the people
who has petitioned for promotion to senior lecturer . . . has served on I don't know how
many committees. Nobody would guess that he wasn't a tenured-stream faculty judging
from the work he does, the quality of the work.” In reflecting on her role as an
administrator, she provided an example of a time where faculty ranks were equal. She
commented:
Almost immediately [after I got tenure], I was appointed to an administrative role
as the Director of what was called the Peer Educator Program. That involved my
working with a lot of faculty on this program, and many of those faculty were
lecturers; and I think one of the things that I'm proud of in my leadership in that
role was that everybody was treated the same. It allowed faculty to develop some
pedagogies that I think have had a huge influence on our curriculum, our
undergraduate curriculum.

A faculty member from the English Department stated that ranks did not seem as
important because the group is “judging on an individual skill set and competence rather
than on rank when they are deciding on certain matters or voting for certain people to be
on committees.”
Valuing the voices of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty and bringing them to the
forefront builds shared responsibility and relationships, as well as confidence and trust,
among the various faculty groups. One of the tenured faculty members within the
Education Department commented that, “A number of [administrators] really understand
the value of [full-time, non-tenure-track faculty], have them be a part of all the faculty
meetings and listened to carefully, and all the rest of the faculty weighed what they had to

104
say.” Faculty felt that through participation, administrators were able to create a space
where they could voice their opposition on a specific issue. A Lecturer within the
Education Department noted:
Openness and transparency are values that this administration is really trying to
practice. [Our Department Chair] often says to us that he wants to know what
we're thinking. He wants our opinion even if it's different from the majority or
even one that he doesn't hold. He still wants to know what our opinion is and
why we hold it. That kind of openness and encouragement is really what's
necessary because, if you got the feeling that the person didn't want to hear
anything else, you'd probably stop going to tell them anything.

It is through this collaborative leadership that participation, values, shared responsibility,
and relationships are supported and promoted in shared governance and participatory
decision-making.
Builds Relationships and Promotes Shared Responsibility
The participatory environment present within the Education and English
Departments builds relationships and promotes shared responsibility within the academic
community. The second theme focuses on how participatory decision-making builds
relationships and promotes shared responsibility. The participants commented that these
attributes were closely related and were a result of the participatory environment and
values present within their departments and, at other times, the institution. Building
relationships and promoting shared responsibility appear to occur simultaneously and in a
codependent nature. As relationships were fostered, a greater sense of responsibility
occurred within the academic community, and relationships were strengthened. This
codependence was made possible through opportunities for collaboration and the
contributions made in decision-making, gaining a better understanding of each other as

105
well as the process, and having the voice and opinion of full-time, non-tenure-track
faculty listened to and valued. Further, participants felt connected, committed, and
invested in their community. Figure 4 illustrates the relationship between these various
elements and their influence on building relationships and promoting shared
responsibility.

Figure 4. Elements that influence building relationships and shared responsibility.

It is important to note that there are times in which the outcomes of collaboration and
shared responsibility have an adverse effect on the faculty experience. This also will be
discussed.
Collaboration and contribution in decision making. Shared responsibility is
evident in the decisions in which full-time, non-tenure-track faculty participate and that
they influence. The participatory environment also provides many opportunities for
collaboration. The mere inclusion and participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty
encourages collaboration. When asked about faculty participation in decision-making,
one Senior Lecturer from within the English Department commented:

106
Since we're supposed to work through our department chair and the director of
writing, we do that, but there are also fairly frequent meetings with the deans of
the faculty in English. We had a number of those over the years where we are
asked for our insight or input on an issue that may be coming up . . . we
participate in governance by sharing with the dean's staff our concerns or issues
that we see with maybe a pending change or something that we've submitted as a
department. The deans will come back and want more information, but in terms
of directly influencing, it's more like a representative democracy, I suppose.
When they meet with us, they'll meet with tenure-track, senior lecturers, and
renewable lecturers.

Meetings with a deliberate “representative democracy” of faculty ranks to collaborate and
discuss insights and input on issues or pending changes foster shared responsibility of
full-time, non-tenure-track faculty. As a tenured faculty member within the English
Department noted, “There's a clear sense of wait a second, are there lecturers in the room
because we're not all here if they're not here. When we're making major decisions, we
need to take everybody's perspective into consideration.” When discussing
representation on varying committees at the departmental and academic unit levels, one
Senior Lecturer from English commented, “Lecturers are not only allowed, but we try to
make sure the representation is fair across the various ranks so that there's a voice, let's
say, with non-tenured faculty.” There is an explicit commitment to the representation of
full-time, non-tenure-track in collaborative discussions.
Collaborative discussions often can contribute to and inform decision-making. As
stated by a Senior Lecturer in the English Department, “On issues that are within the
department . . . you get to decide and ideally in consultation with your faculty as to what
they want and what will happen.” A Lecturer within the Education Department noted:
We make decisions together as a faculty. We have both master's degree programs
and we have credential programs, so those faculty members that teach in the
master's degree program are involved in all the master's degree decisions. Those

107
people that only teach in the credential program are involved in the credential
program decisions. I teach in both programs; that's why I'm involved in all
decisions of both programs.

An administrator, Senior Lecturer, and Lecturer commented on the contributions
and decisions that full-time, non-tenure-track faculty make. One administrator noted,
“Except for rank and tenure . . . lecturers weigh in . . . in every other area, curriculum and
hiring non-tenure-track faculty and evaluations, non-tenure-track faculty are full
participants and they vote and chair committees and all of that.” She later noted, “In the
English Department, [full-time, non-tenure-track] contribute tremendously [to decision-
making]. Our curriculum is shaped by their presence, their expertise, and their
participation in discussions; they're very important.” A Senior Lecturer within the
English Department commented on his participation in decision-making to include
matters such as, “Who to hire, curriculum change, program change, time tables for doing
program review and deciding on what areas the next tenure-track hire should be in. Rank
and tenure is one of the few I am not able to participate in.” A Lecturer from within the
Education Department explained her participation in decision-making in a similar way:
“It's in all areas, so it's in decisions about curriculum and instruction. It's in decisions on
hiring new faculty members, both tenure-track and non-tenure-track. I'm included in
decisions about facilities, decisions about policies.”
The ability of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty to engage in discussions,
collaborate with their colleagues–administrators, tenured, and tenure-track faculty–and
inform decision-making gives them a voice in the process of promoting shared
responsibility and building relationships. When full-time, non-tenure-track faculty have a

108
voice in the decision-making process, they feel that they are listened to, that their ideas
are valued, and that they can influence change. As a Senior Lecturer in English
commented, “I do [feel my voice is heard and I am listened to], both within the
department, within the college, and to a certain extent within the university, yes.” A
Lecturer from within the Education Department stated, “I feel like I am indeed changing
people's minds about where we need to be as far as growing our department and the
future of our department . . . It's to the point where there hasn't been one thing that I've
recommended that they haven't implemented.” Another Senior Lecturer in English
explained, “People listen when we talk at meetings . . . I'm treated well, with respect and
regard . . . I think my status does not enter into how I'm treated.”
Along this non-rank-specific line, a few Senior Lecturers and Lecturers
commented on the fact that they were sought after or nominated by administrators or
faculty to participate in governance, committees, and other decision-making groups. One
of the Senior Lecturer participants was nominated for Faculty Senate president. At the
time, there were two tenured, male faculty members also running for Faculty Senate
president. Despite the competition, the Senior Lecturer won the election, and she served
as the Faculty Senate president for one year. Another Senior Lecturer participant was
asked by a university administrator to serve as the Chair of the University Policy and
Practice Committee on Student Affairs. She is in year two of a three-year appointment as
Chair of the Committee. These nominations and appointments are a representation of the
values held by administrators and faculty in reference to the opportunities provided for
and realized by full-time, non-tenure-track faculty.

109
Several other participants mentioned various opportunities in which they were
able to express their ideas and were given a voice in collaboration and contribution to
discussions and decisions within their Departments. One Lecturer within the Education
Department shared the following experience:
We had to create a whole new vision and mission for our department. I spoke up,
and people were more oriented towards what the California state requirements
are, which I agree we need to do in order to be accredited. There's also that
element of social justice and kind of ethical issues that are involved in learning,
instruction, and teaching that are part of our institution as a whole that we're not
really emphasizing which should be emphasized. That language got implemented
and it's now part of our department's mission and vision.

This experience illustrates the opportunity for collaboration provided through the
Department. The Lecturer shared her voice and thoughts on an issue, and the
administrators, tenured, and tenure-track colleagues valued what she had to say, despite
her rank. Within the English Department, a Senior Lecturer discussed how she could use
her voice and influence decision-making:
If it’s a more important change like the change for a renewable term lecturer, you
can advocate, you can bring data, you can do your research, you can make
presentations to the deans about why this would be a good thing, schools that
have done it and what the results are, and why we should do it so you can
basically build an argument and hope that it's persuasive. Eventually it was
persuasive with respect to renewable term lecturers, but it took a while. Can you
have an impact? Yes, you can.

These opportunities highlight the shared responsibility and relationships that have
developed, and continue to develop, through these collaborative discussions.
It is important to note that not all collaborative discussions and decisions are
effortless or reached unanimously. At times, discussions will invoke opposing views and
ideas or disagreement on decisions that need to be made. When asked if she ever had to

110
oppose a popular decision, one Senior Lecturer from within the English Department
commented, “Yes, I disagreed with the President adamantly. I was representing the
faculty and there were decisions being made that sometimes weren’t in the faculty’s best
interest. I spoke out…I acknowledge that I don’t feel that I’ve been hampered.” When
asked if there were fears in making an unpopular comment and having contracts not be
renewed, one tenured faculty member within English Department commented, “There
have been allegations made that our Lecturers believe that there will be retaliation if they
speak their mind. I have heard that allegation made.” When asked if retaliation had ever
officially happened, she commented, “I am not aware of it.” Along these same lines, a
Senior Lecturer within the English Department added:
I think there's a pretty good differential in a person’s willingness to engage on
controversial issues in particular. When it's not too controversial, when it's really
a discussion about something we all feel equally competent to talk about, I don't
think there is that fear of speaking. I think it's often a factor of the length of time
and how secure that person feels. It's so variable. There are some people who
would come in and speak out for what they want and other people who have been
there for 15 years and have never opened up their mouth. It's very difficult to
generalize.

When asked to describe the degree to which she would voice her opinion, present a
different view, or oppose a decision being made, the Senior Lecturer continued to
explain:
If it's something that I feel strongly about and that involves some kind of ethical
or moral component or something that I think would be bad for students or for
faculty, I will speak up. Most academics don't really like confrontation. If it's
something that's not that important and I know I'm going to clash with a faculty
member who is incredibly combative and slams people publically, sometimes I
won't speak.

111
Another full-time, non-tenure-track faculty also expressed her perspective regarding
voicing her opinion when it differed from the popular view. When asked to share an
example of a time in which she had a differing view and how she voiced her position, a
Senior Lecturer within the Education Department explained:
I proposed with very specific details, a class for [elementary], one for
[secondary], and one for adult, and I outlined those three courses exactly what
they would look like; objectives, standards, activities, that kind of thing and
presented three different course outlines to set up for three different courses.
That's the kind of participation we have in a faculty meeting of what this new
Master's program will look like. Of course I'm not alone; the people in the
English Language are doing the same thing, and people in the STEM (Science
Technology and Environmental Education in Math) are writing their particular
courses. We can't have 45 courses so we'll vote and we'll look at specifics and I
may have to compromise so instead of three separate courses, I might have two;
one for multiple subject level, one for single subject adult level, something like
that. That's very specific of what’s going on right now.

Disagreement and opposition are to be expected in shared discussions, especially when
there are individuals from various appointment types, with different viewpoints and ideas
participating.
Gaining a better understanding of each other as well as the process. Through
collaboration and working together, a better sense and understanding of each other, as
well as of the decision-making process, is developed. Through discussions and
interactions, administrators, tenured, tenure-track, and full-time, non-tenure-track faculty
get to know and understand each other in a more significant way. A Lecturer within the
Education Department mentioned, “Comments have been made by everyone [in the
Department] on how this inclusive model is just so helpful in our department in . . .
understanding the expertise that non-tenure track faculty might bring to problem solving

112
various issues.” The administrator of the Education Department confirmed the Lecturer’s
comment when he shared the following observation and example:
It’s a two-way street; the more that we hear each other talk, in a collegial, in a
professional, in a substantive way, the better that we understand each other and
the more that we can appreciate each other for what contributions we can bring. I
really think that this is the same across the different ranks. What I have seen is a
willingness from the tenure-track faculty and the tenured faculty, myself included,
to engage Lecturers in certain issues as equals without letting rank get in the way.
To give you a concrete example, in the teacher preparation program, one of the
things we are trying to do is to make the grading standards more equal across
courses . . . To equalize that across courses has meant that people who are
teaching different sections of the same course, sometimes a tenure-track or
tenured faculty member with a Lecturer or Senior Lecturer, those conversations
have nothing to do with rank. Okay, you’re teaching it, I’m teaching it, we have
to agree.

A better understanding of each other develops from the relationships formed
through the various interactions and discussions that take place. Through participation
across the various levels of governance at the institution, individuals can make
connections and develop relationships with individuals across academic units as well as
the institution. At times, full-time, non-tenure-track faculty feel listened to and valued as
a result of having these connections, who they know, and their length of time at the
institution. It is possible that without some of these connections, the faculty experience
in governance might play out differently. When asked whether she felt her voice was
heard and she was listened to, a Senior Lecturer within the English Department
commented: “I do, both within the department, within the college and to a certain extent
within the university. I think this is a result of having connections with other campus
units that has increased the ability to be heard.” When asked how she might feel

113
differently about her voice being heard if she had not had the opportunities to develop
these connections, she noted:
I think it would be very different and it would be modulated by the number of
years that I have been here, by the number of people that I know, who those
people are, and by my rank...If I were a new lecturer, I'm not sure that my voice
would be heard in the same way.

Another Senior Lecturer within the English Department commented:
There are certain faculty no matter what I say, they wouldn’t want to talk to me or
hear me whether in my Department or others, I’m sure. Not everyone is
universally respected and liked. There are others who will listen to me willingly.
I do feel that I am listened to by the President, in certain ways, because I [worked
with him directly] for one year. It’s not on the basis of rank; it’s individual, he
knows me.

In addition to gaining a better understanding of each other, individuals are better
able to understand the process and the role they play within it. A Senior Lecturer within
the English Department noted:
You begin to see if you hadn't already how complicated the different pieces are. . .
I think what you come to understand is the complexity of [decision-making], and
it seems to me, while you may not like to know you can't do X because of Y, you
at least understand it. You see the complexity of the ways in which the university
operates that you don't see when you're not on those committees. I think it gives
you a better understanding both of how to work within the system effectively and
a new appreciation for the way decisions get made.

It is through collaborating, contributing, valuing voices and opinions, and gaining a better
understanding of each other that individuals begin to feel committed to and invested in
their colleagues and the work that they all do.
Full-time, non-tenure-track faculty feel committed and invested. In fostering
relationships and promoting shared responsibility across all full-time faculty
appointments, full-time, non-tenure-track faculty develop a sense of commitment and

114
investment; they feel connected. As a Lecturer from the English Department noted, “I
believe in my department, I like my department, and I think what we do is important. I
think writing is important. I figured I needed to do my share. I felt a sense of community
and responsibility.” As the administrator within the English Department commented,
“When people feel a part of the program, they're more likely to feel loyal.” When asked
what influenced her desire to participate, a Lecturer within the Education Department
stated:
I think a desire to know what's happening in the department and to be a part of it.
I think on the part of the department and the school, they really are trying to build
much more buy-in from everyone . . . I think that this is a way to increase
transparency in the way decisions were made and also to get fuller buy-in. I
honestly think that has happened, I've seen the change.

There is not only desire to know what is happening within the department, but a
willingness to be a part of it. This Lecturer wants to be connected to the Department, to
the discussions and decisions that are taking place. In doing so, it establishes
commitment and investment. Later in her interview, the Lecturer commented:
I feel more invested and definitely empowered. I think there's more investment,
there's more buy-in when you know that [your participation in the decision-
making process actually contributes to decision-making], especially in the areas
of your own expertise. If you make a proposal or submit a proposal for something
that you believe will make the program better, it will be listened to and discussed
and given serious consideration. I know for me that's enough. I don't always
have to get what I want, but I'm happy to know people are willing to look at the
issues and make changes where they're indicated. That makes me much more
invested not only in the position here, but also in bringing things to the table that I
think need change or improvement in. I am more eager to look for ways that the
programs can be improved and not afraid to bring those to the table.

As a Senior Lecturer within the English Department described, “For some I think
[participation] has really helped, and I think the more you can give people avenues for

115
doing good, interesting work and feeling like they're a part of something, it makes a very
positive difference.” In developing relationships and shared responsibility through
collaboration and a better understanding of one another, faculty feel committed to and
invested in the decision-making process. A Lecturer within the Education Department
noted:
People [are] invested into the school and caring about more than just their
classrooms. I think it creates faculty who have a broader vision of the goals and
the objectives that the school or department is trying to achieve. I think you have
a more knowledgeable, more committed faculty.

Faculty feel connected to a common purpose, to shared values and thoughts that promote
the academic community.
Participation can lead to frustration and disenfranchisement. Although
shared responsibility is fostered and faculty feel committed to and invested in the
decision-making process, there are times when the process raises concerns and
discontent. In addition, there might be instances in which faculty prefer not to participate
in the governance and decision-making process due to their passion in other areas, such
as teaching. One of the participants raised a concern regarding the time constraints of
participation. Although he did value participation in discussions and having his voice
heard, he noted that the outcomes of the process were at times counterproductive. He
commented on his frustration in giving up time to participate in these collaborative
discussions and to arrive at a collective recommendation or decision, only to have them
be somewhat ignored and circumvented by the administrator in charge at the time. He
explained:

116
I think overall I'd say that service, be it the governance, that's been neutral and
sometimes even negative. One example of that is that I’ll talk a little bit about
larger department things. I remember one summer there was a huge hiring
committee . . . I live [far from campus] and I came down day-by-day for weeks to
work on that committee. We ended up rank ordering the candidates; there were
seven candidates. In the end, the administrators picked . . . our fifth and seventh
choice because some administrators in charge knew the people . . . I was furious.
I [drove a considerable distance] round trip for two weeks, and they weren't going
to listen to what we said, anyway. That goes against my happiness, my job
satisfaction. That's my overall feeling about that. The governance has been
neutral or negative.

Although one cannot expect that all recommendations or decisions made by a collective
will be automatically adopted or accepted by others, an action like the one described here
can lead to frustration and resentment rather than commitment and investment. It appears
as though the work and decision of the group assigned to make the recommendations
were, for the most part, ignored. Actions like these go against the very nature of the
attributes described in promoting relationships and shared responsibility.
Another Senior Lecturer shared her frustration and discontent with having a voice
in decision-making, but not having an official vote. As was previously explained, faculty
are unable to evaluate faculty at ranks above their own. Therefore, during hiring
processes for tenured and tenure-track faculty, Senior Lecturers and Lecturers are able to
participate in the process and discussion but are unable to officially vote in the hiring of
potential faculty members. She explained that she is able to participate on search
committees; however, she noted that doing all of the work that goes into a search
committee falls short when she is unable to officially vote in the hiring decision for the
potential candidate. She can participate in all of the discussions as well as share her
thoughts and perspectives. She can also share whether she would decide to hire the

117
potential faculty. However, her sharing her decision would not be done in any sort of
official capacity. She commented:
Anyway, my voice is strong in that [I’ve been teaching at the University for 20
years]; but as far as having a voice and a vote, that's pretty frustrating, as you can
image. For example, if I were on that search committee and did all the work with
the search committee and then had no vote, that would be extraordinarily
frustrating. I guess I would have to admit that's part of the reason why I don't
want to be on a search committee, and I wouldn't ask to be on a search committee.
Why would I do that without a vote?

Later in her interview, she commented on a few decisions she can vote on:
We do vote on things like we're changing our masters program and offering an
MAT degree for the first time. We discussed this and had a vote in our own
faculty, as it just applies to the School of Education, and we certainly have a voice
and we have a vote, so to speak.

Ultimately, she shared her opinion on what the structure should be: “I think that anybody
who is working full-time and is participating in discussions and committee meetings and
so on should have a vote. To me, that's America. I don't understand why tenured, tenure-
track is the magic bullet for voting.” As individuals committed to and invested in a
common purpose, shared values, and thoughts that promote the academic community,
governance practices might provide the opportunity for full-time, non-tenure-track
faculty to vote in areas of their expertise, teaching and service. Again, this promotes
relationships and shared responsibility within the community.
It is important to note that, although opportunities for participation in decision-
making exist, not all faculty will have the desire or feel the need to participate. Despite
opportunities for participation, full-time, non-tenure-track faculty may not always find
the opportunity as one that manifests empowerment, but rather feelings of
disenfranchisement. As a Senior Lecturer within the English Department commented:

118
The drawback is that sometimes the Senior Lecturer may lack the gravitas with
certain other offices, with certain offices off campus, so that they may feel less
empowered or sometimes more likely to be dismissed when they are making
certain assertions or trying to argue for certain things. They may feel that they
don't want to rock the boat because they're not tenured and therefore they may not
dissent as openly or readily if they had the benefit of tenure.

Faculty might also prefer to follow their passion for teaching and focus on their interests.
As a Senior Lecturer within the English Department explained:
I'm evaluated every year on an 80/10/10 basis; 80% teacher, 10% service, and
10% composition. I'm perfectly happy with that. I think I actually will do the
10%, but I'm happy that they count only that much because I think 80% define my
happiness, and my passion would lie in the classroom work. My job satisfaction
is as a teacher, an advisor. I don't feel exploited or oppressed or that I suffer for
not being a department chair and not being an administrator and other ways; not
sitting on rank and tenured committees. I'm really happy just being a classroom
teacher; that's my passion. My ambition is just to keep teaching . . . In a way I
feel grateful that other people do the administrative service that has to be done.
I'm happy that other people do that to free me up to teach.

It might be expected that the desires of individuals who are hired for teaching functions
lie primarily in teaching and working with students.
Participation in Decision Making and Organizational Dynamics
The purpose of Research Question 2 was to develop an understanding of how
various stakeholders in a School, administrators, tenured, tenure-track, and full-time,
non-tenure-track faculty perceive the participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty
in School-level decision-making affects organizational dynamics. To that end,
participants from the varying faculty groups were asked to describe their perceptions of
how the participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty influenced decision-making
within their Department. They were then asked to describe how participation of full-
time, non-tenure-track faculty in decision-making influenced the overall Department. An

119
analysis of participant responses revealed three common themes. The first theme that
emerged was that full-time, non-tenure-track faculty participation significantly builds
knowledge capacity and influences decision-making. The second theme focused on
overall improved organizational dynamics within the Department as a result of the
participation of this faculty group. The third theme explains how participation of full-
time, non-tenure-track faculty in governance and decision-making diminishes traditional
systems of governance. The following provides an analysis of participant responses and
is organized by theme.
Participation Builds Knowledge Capacity and Influences Decision-Making
Many of the participants provided responses that placed an emphasis on multiple
perspectives, different thoughts, and varied experiences as reasons for, in support of, and
beneficial to inclusion and participation. Many of the participants felt that full-time, non-
tenure-track faculty’s participation in decision-making builds knowledge capacity and
influenced decision-making within their Department. Seven of the 11 participants
specifically emphasized advantages to and benefits of participation in decision-making of
full-time, non-tenure-track faculty. One of the tenured faculty participants in the English
Department noted, “I feel that they contribute quite significantly in discussions, in their
commitment to being informed and present. I think they're quite influential.” One of the
Lecturers in the Education Department stated, “I also think better, better decisions are
made when you have a lot of people looking at the issue and then coming to consensus. I
think you definitely come out with increased, better decisions.”

120
An administrator within the English Department who also holds a tenured faculty
position commented, “When lecturers feel included and empowered, then decision-
making is vastly improved because we have multiple perspectives and we have a range of
smart people participating in the conversations that lead to change . . . especially when
there is good leadership.” This emphasized the perceived advantage of participation by
full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in decision-making. A Lecturer within the Education
Department also stated, "[Participation in decision-making] brings multiple perspectives
to the decision-making process. It brings multiple solutions to difficult problems. It
brings multiple areas of expertise into the decision-making process. It provides multiple
resources." The belief in the value of bringing varied perspectives and experiences
together contributed to the advantages and benefits of full-time, non-tenure-track
faculty’s participation in decision-making. Their participation develops and contributes
to the knowledge capacity within decision-making groups.
Ten of the 11 participants discussed the value in the participation of full-time,
non-tenure-track faculty. Many participants noted that the participation of full-time, non-
tenure-track faculty was beneficial because they bring different perspectives and
experiences, and they enrich the conversation regarding what is best represented or
discussed. Participants believed that full-time, non-tenure-track faculty often offer a
viewpoint on issues that some tenured or tenure-track faculty would not put forth.
Viewpoints can differ because of particular students they had or their professional or
personal background. For example, a tenured faculty in the Education Department noted
that, in the Special Education Program that she directed, she had a Lecturer with a

121
clinical psychology background. He would bring different approaches to issues, ideas,
and processes that needed to be considered. He was able to provide a perspective, due to
his individual experience, that others could not.
Along these lines, a Department Chair shared two specific examples in which the
participation of the full-time, non-tenure-track faculty significantly contributed to
decision-making. In the first example, he described an incident regarding a proposal that
had been brought to the Department and feedback that had been obtained from tenured,
tenure-track, and full-time, non-tenure-track faculty. Although the Chair had the
necessary approval to move forward, a Senior Lecturer approached him and made him
aware of some serious reservations he had. The Chair then provided the Senior Lecturer
with time at the next faculty meeting to express his concerns to the Department. Not only
did an extensive conversation ensue in which all members of the Department addressed
the Senior Lecturer’s reservations, but the proposal was approved with a better sense and
understanding of where things were going. The administrator commented, “Giving
ourselves the time for the benefit of this colleague ended up benefiting all of us from
having the opportunity to chat a little bit more about things.”
In the second example, all members of the Department, tenured, tenure-track, full-
time, non-tenure-track, were engaged in a discussion regarding assessment instruments,
specifically, on the terms used within the instruments and what each one of those terms
meant, including the context in which they were used and how their students should then
be trained to use them. Through the discussion, it became clear very quickly that there

122
were different meanings for and interpretations of the terms among different individuals.
The administrator noted:
Turns out that a tenure-track faculty member who works a lot with English
language learners had one type of understanding for one of those terms in one
context. A Lecturer who also works with English language learners in a different
context, has a different take on the legal issues, had a different context. A Senior
Lecturer who works with special education populations had a different
understanding from a conceptual as well as from a legal perspective. And then
another one of the Lecturers, who is also an expert on assessment of special
education students, had yet another perspective from the assessment focus.

The discussion resulted in common understanding among the member of the Department
of the various contexts of the terms and how the terms would be used within each
context, along with how they would need to guide their students to understand the terms
in the context they encountered.
Each of these examples is reflective of both the administrator’s leadership role in
providing the opportunity for participation and the full-time, non-tenure faculty’s role in
providing significant contributions, perspectives, and experiences. The Department Chair
attributes the outcome of these conversations to the knowledge and contribution of the
full-time, non-tenure-track faculty. He commented, “If the conversation had been limited
just to the tenure-track and the tenured faculty, we would have developed a
fundamentally different understanding without the contributions of those two lecturers
and senior lecturer.” A comment made by a Senior Lecturer within the English
Department might best summarize participant perceptions: “People’s opinions don’t vary
by rank; [opinions] vary by individual.”
Of particular importance within the Education Department was that, without the
participation of this faculty group, only two or three tenured and tenure-track individuals

123
would be making the decisions on behalf of the entire Department, which consists of 15
faculty members. In addition, almost the entire full-time, non-tenure-track faculty hold a
considerable amount of experience from the practical field of education: K-12 schools,
districts, and offices of education. As previously mentioned, they have held positions as
teachers, counselors, administrators, and district personnel, including roles as
superintendents. This clinical practice in the field provides for a wealth of experience,
knowledge, and diverse perspective. As one Senior Lecturer within the Department
explained:
Most of the full-time, non-tenure-track faculty have the practical knowledge of
and experience in the field. They are able to bring this knowledge from the field
into the university. Without them, the Department would be relying on two or
three tenured and tenure-track faculty who have limited to no experience in the
field. They have never been teachers. In other words, these [tenured and tenure-
track] faculty would be making decisions on things they have never experienced
and may not fully understand.

Therefore, even though the majority of the faculty are full-time, non-tenure-track, they
are able to provide for greater perspective than are tenured and tenure-track faculty and
are able to draw from varying experiences.
Many of the participants felt that full-time, non-tenure-track faculty’s
participation in decision-making positively affected decision-making within their
Department. There is value in their participation because each individual contributed
multiple perspectives, and their thoughts and ideas developed from their varied
experiences.
Although full-time, non-tenure-track faculty’s participation in decision-making,
within the Education and English Departments, is perceived to influence decision-making

124
through their multiple perspectives, thoughts, and varied experiences, participation can
provide challenges. The process of decision-making can become more difficult as there
are more individuals involved in the process. In addition, given the multiple perspectives
and varied experiences that each individual brings to the discussion, agreement on issues
or decisions to be made may take a considerable amount of time. As the administrator
within the English Department noted:
[Decision-making] is also harder because if you only have the people who are
already in power, making decisions, they're more likely to agree [with each other]
so it makes decision-making harder . . . It does complicate things. If decision-
making were all done by our 12-13 tenured faculty, it would be easier to schedule
meetings, there would be fewer differences of opinion, and I think in some ways it
would be easier. Easier isn't better in my mind.

Also identifying time and disagreement on issues as a challenge in decision-making was
a Lecturer from within the English Department. She stated:
Disadvantages are that it takes longer and it means more meetings and longer
meetings; most people don't enjoy meetings. That's probably the biggest
disadvantage. I guess if you were really polarized on something it could cause
bad feelings with the staff. I definitely think when you're going to share major
issues with the whole faculty; you have to have somebody pretty good at
facilitating those meetings, especially if they're touching on issues that are close
to people's hearts. If it's not done well, I think sometimes you can do more
damage than good in large groups.

Although these challenges were noted by a couple of the participants in regard to
participatory decision-making, not one identified the challenge as a reason to curtail
participation by full-time, non-tenure-track faculty.
Improved Organizational Dynamics
As noted in earlier discussions, through participatory decision-making,
administrators and faculty across the various ranks get to know and understand each other

125
in a more significant way. An emphasis on the importance and value of building
knowledge capacity within decision-making groups also demonstrates an improved
understanding of individuals as well as an appreciation for the unique contributions made
by each individual. The second theme focuses on how the enhanced understanding that
administrators and faculty gain for each other, through the participatory decision-making
process, also improves organizational dynamics. It is important to note that, for these
organizational dynamics to improve as a result of the participatory decision-making
process, they would need to be present within the environment prior to engaging in the
process. Further, these dynamics might also improve as they contribute to the process.
In other words, these dynamics are not only outcomes of the process, but essential to the
process as well; they influence and enhance each other within and throughout the process.
Although several organizational dynamics contributed to and improved as a result
of the participatory decision-making process, four dynamics emerged from the data as
predominant. These improved dynamics were respect, communication, collaboration,
and collegiality. I will present a variety of data that suggest that participants in the
setting saw increased respect that contributed to communication, collaboration, and
collegiality. In addition, the data also suggests that communication promotes
collaboration and that, together, they promote collegiality. Although additional dynamics
that resulted from the decision-making process were noted in the literature, they did not
emerge from the data as prevalent as those dynamics already mentioned. For that reason,
the focus of this section is on the predominant dynamics that emerged from the data.

126
Respect. Through gaining a better understanding of one another, administrators,
tenured, tenure-track, and full-time, non-tenure-track faculty have developed and
increased their respect for each other. As a Lecturer within the Education Department
noted, “[Participation] has increased the level of respect within the faculty and between
departments in the university. I would say it increased the level of respect and trust
within the faculty . . . across all levels of faculty.” Another Lecturer within the Education
Department stated, “You learn to listen to each other, especially for the younger, newer
members of the staff or faculty. You have to learn to respect different opinions, and
sometimes it's surprising. You learn to appreciate differences.”
These faculty perceptions reemphasize how, through participation, individuals
gain an understanding of the perspectives, thoughts, and varied experiences they each
bring to a group. In discussing how full-time, non-tenure-track faculty are respected, a
tenured faculty member within the Education Department stated, “They have always been
highly respected because we don't hire anybody who hasn't had a lot of experience. Most
of them come with a lot of experience from the field that the faculty didn't have, so that
was highly respected.” Participation provides an acknowledgement of the experience and
knowledge that full-time, non-tenure-track faculty hold. Not only is respect developed,
but these faculty members also can gain recognition based on their experiences and work.
As noted by the administrator within the English Department:
Well, I think their inclusion has increased the level of respect and recognition.
They show up, they speak, they do the work, and folks respect that. Their
competence is unquestionable because they're here, and they're contributing, and
we see the quality of their work. Tenure-track faculty respect non-tenure track
faculty in English, yes, because we know them, we know their work, and that's a
result of their participation in almost all aspects of the department.

127

These sentiments are shared within the Education Department, as well. The administrator
within the Department commented:
[Participation] has affected [the level of respect among] us very positively. By
opening the conversation to everybody without any reference to rank, that allowed
essentially these two people, one a lecturer and one a senior lecturer, to emerge as
voices with great authority to the credit of my colleague, who is the only full
professor we have right now participating in these meetings . . . At the end of the
conversations, she said I want to thank this lecturer and this senior lecturer,
referring to them by name, of course, for their contributions because without their
contributions, this conversation would not have been as productive.

It is through this type of participation and resulting recognition that respect is
developed among group members. In addition, the administrator from the English
Department noted, “I guess the respect grows primarily out of communication skills and
analytic skills.” It is through a developed sense of respect within the members of a group
that communication and collaboration can be effective and collegiality can be promoted.
Communication, collaboration, and collegiality. Communication,
collaboration, and collegiality work interdependently of each other and are supported by
the element of respect. Through the development of respect, individuals can feel as
though the decision-making environment is supportive and one in which they can speak
freely. When discussing the perceived influence that participation has had on the level of
communication within the Education Department, the administrator noted, “I think
[participation] has improved the ability and confidence of people to speak their piece, to
say their piece with greater confidence, knowing that the environment is a supportive
one, that is, where no one’s going to put you down.”

128
When faculty respects one another, an environment conducive to communication
is created. The environment is supportive and fosters the confidence in full-time, non-
tenure-track faculty to speak freely. When individuals feel respected, and they are
confident and secure in their ability to communicate with others, these elements facilitate
the opportunity for collaboration among group members. A Lecturer within the
Education Department noted that, through communication and collaboration, “You learn
to listen to each other . . . You have to learn to respect different opinions . . . You learn to
appreciate differences more than you do if you're all in your own little cubicle.” As
another Lecturer within the Education Department explained:
I would say collaboration defines everything we do. That is the word that we use
to define how we operate as a department, collaboratively. There's collaboration
between the faculty and the staff, there's collaboration between teaching faculty
and senior faculty, administrators; everything is collaborative.

Another Lecturer from within the Education Department stated, “There is zero
competition. It’s all collaboration.” Through participatory decision-making, individuals
communicate, work collaboratively, and share their thoughts and ideas. As described by
a Lecturer within the Education Department:
People just talk together more about issues. There's a group that gets together
[tenured, tenure-track, and full-time, non-tenure-track faculty] that teaches either
the multiple subject or the single subject credential classes, and the last meetings
were a series of lunch meetings. And we actually shared syllabi just to see what
we were doing in some of the foundational courses. We shared what our
expectations were and what our policies were and what the content was. People
really enjoyed it.

It is through this respect for the individual and the knowledge each one possesses
as well as the communication and collaboration between members of a Department that
relationships and shared responsibility take shape between faculty members across the

129
various faculty ranks. As was discussed in a previous section, building relationships and
shared responsibility are positive outcomes of participatory decision-making. By
building relationships and shared responsibility through respect, communication, and
collaboration, faculty are able to work together and engage in conversations over certain
issues, irrespective of their specific rank. As the administrator within the Education
Department noted:
What I have seen is willingness from the tenure-track faculty and the tenured
faculty, myself included, to engage the lecturers in certain issues as equals
without letting rank get in the way. To give you a concrete example, in the
teacher preparation program, one of the things that we're trying to do is to make
the grading standards more equal across courses so that the experience that
students have in one course . . . will be the same in all courses . . . To equalize that
across courses has meant that people who are teaching different sections of the
same course [have to collaborate], sometimes a tenure-track or tenured faculty
member, with a lecturer or a lecturer. Those conversations have nothing to do
with rank.

These collaborative actions depend on the communication as well as on the levels of
respect and trust present within and among the individuals engaged in the activity. There
exists a willingness and understanding of the ability and necessity for all faculty ranks to
participate in decision-making. As such, respect, communication, and collaboration can
promote collegiality within the academic community.
The Faculty Handbook of IPU might best capture the value the institution, its
academic units, and departments place on collaboration and collegiality. Collegiality is
described in the faculty handbook:
Collegiality is not a distinct capacity to be assessed independently of [teaching,
scholarship, and professional activity/service]. It is rather a quality whose value
is expressed in the successful execution of these three functions. Collegiality
means that faculty members cooperate with one another in sharing the common
burdens related to discharging their responsibilities, and do so in a conscientious

130
and professional manner. Collegiality is not the same as conformity or
intellectual agreement and may not be interpreted in a way that violates the
principles of academic freedom. In those rare instances in which lack of
collegiality becomes an issue in the evaluation of faculty for reappointment,
promotion, or tenure, it may be considered only insofar as it has negative effect on
the functioning of the department, college or school, or University (IPU Faculty
Handbook, 2002, Standards for Promotion and Tenure section, para. 8).

In identifying and describing collegiality within the Faculty Handbook, IPU
establishes the importance of respect, communication, and collaboration and how the lack
of collegiality could have a negative effect on the functioning of the department,
academic unit, or institution. Fortunately, it appears as though collegiality is an inherent
trait promoted by participation, respect, communication, and collaboration. As a Lecturer
within the Education Department noted regarding the relationships among the members
of the Department, including faculty across all ranks and administrators:
There is a very positive attitude that everyone has. Everyone really enjoys being
with each other. We've developed friendships. There's a lot more encouragement
between the faculty and encouragement from the administration and also
recognition of strengths that people bring to the table. We've always pat each
other on the back for any kind of publication submissions or research that we're
all doing. Everyone is always very supportive of everyone else's advancements.
We make a really huge deal about any kind of recognition that any faculty
member gets . . . It's like a family environment.

Participation in decision-making has provided the opportunity for individuals to
develop friendships and encourage each other in their work and for their contributions.
This occurs over time and through the various interactions and discussions among
individuals. The administrator within the Education Department best summarized these
dynamics when he stated, “I think that the more we hear each other talk in a collegial,
professional way, the better we understand each other and the more we can appreciate
each other for what contributions we can bring.” This appreciation is made possible

131
through an inclusive and participatory environment, an environment that promotes
respect, communication, collaboration, and collegiality within and among the different
faculty ranks and the varying decision-making groups.
Traditional Systems of Governance are “Archaic”
Several of the participants, including an administrator, a tenured faculty member,
and several of the full-time, non-tenure-track faculty, perceived that non-participatory
systems of governance were “archaic” and “medieval.” A full-time, non-tenure-track
faculty member commented, “Universities are very hierarchical on issues of governance.
It’s a 14
th
century model being used in the 21
st
century. It’s archaic! For some reason it
has survived. I wouldn’t say it’s working, but it has survived.” Yet another stated, “The
danger of governance in higher education is that you can lose the voice of experience
because of hierarchical participation. An assumption exists that, because one has tenure,
one has knowledge about something or has the capacity to make decisions.” An
administrator commented that, “We are [at times] in a medieval institution where things
have to be, at certain times, be done according to rank because institutions have placed
different responsibilities on people according to rank.” A Senior Lecturer discusses her
perception and thoughts on her inclusion in governance:
Sometimes [tenured, tenure-track, and full-time, non-tenure-track faculty] don't
even know that an individual who has been around as long as I have is a senior
lecturer; they just assume that I'm a tenured faculty member, since part of our
talking to one another generally is just name and department, not rank, if we're
being introduced. They just are judging on an individual's skill set and
competence rather than on rank when they are deciding certain matters, when they
may be voting for certain people to be on committees, that sort of thing. I think
that on the one hand you’ll find people that are able to say that rank therefore
doesn’t matter since we are basing on [skills].

132
A tenured faculty member may have summarized her disagreement with the
traditional system best when she said:
Inclusion of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty is important because they are here
in large numbers, they do very important work; the work that they contribute to
the mission of the University is just as important as the work of the tenure-track
faculty. They are excellent teachers, they serve the University in diverse ways;
certainly as excellent teachers, but some of them are artists, writers, and scholars
as well . . . the work they do is really important. How could we not have them
participate? They are contributing to the mission of the University. We have to
have them participate.

With the shift in the academic workforce, traditional systems of governance are
not prepared to address the rapid changes in the faculty composition within institutions.
Full-time, non-tenure-track faculty are invested, committed, and, more importantly,
knowledgeable to participate in and contribute to governance practices and decision-
making. As a full-time, non-tenure-track faculty who once held a tenure-track position
that she voluntarily resigned from stated, “Everyone should have a vote. I don’t see why
tenured and tenure-track faculty are viewed as special and only capable ones to have a
vote. Anyone who works full-time should have a vote because they are invested.” A
tenured faculty member within the English Department noted, “To choose not to improve
the working conditions for this large number of our colleagues is a question of justice.”
Comments such as these promote the participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty.
I would be remiss if I did not reiterate that these are the perspectives of
individuals within an inclusive environment. Despite the inclusive practices at IPU and
the participatory environment described, a few of the participants did note that there are
academic units and departments at IPU that have not fully embraced the inclusive and
participatory environment. As one administrator commented:

133
There certainly are some units where at least a majority, not everybody, would
say, well, what we're really about is getting our research done, and what we're
really about is promoting our department and promoting the scholarship in our
department; and so this question about lecturer rights or privileges and this sort of
thing is just a big distraction to me right now.

Even in an institution where governance practices, by design and principle, provide the
opportunity for collaboration, participation, and inclusion of various stakeholders, the
“archaic” system seems to persist in other academic units and departments.
Furthermore, although governance practices at IPU provide these opportunities,
other institutions have not modified their practices and operate under traditional systems
of governance. As such, there can be concerns within the IPU academic community
regarding external perceptions of specific roles held by full-time, non-tenure-track
faculty. As a Senior Lecturer who also holds an administrative role within the English
Department explained:
Regardless of how many years a person has been here, rank does matter
oftentimes and a perception about how it looks – not just within the university
because that’s a small place where we all know each other – but how does it look
when we go to talk to colleagues and other universities nationwide to have
somebody at my rank serving as a Department Chair or a Co-Chair. It could look
weak or bad….I’ll let you know this; I am the first one within the Department to
have served in this capacity. I am not the first in the College, there have been
other Senior Lecturers who have served as Department Chairs of Chemistry or
combined sciences in the College.

As an institution whose modified practices differ from traditional processes, external
constituencies might find it difficult to understand or recognize the roles and
responsibilities assigned to the various faculty appointment types.

134
Summary of the Findings
Data collected through document analysis and participant interviews were
analyzed, and several findings were identified. The findings reflect the perceptions and
views shared across each of the varying faculty groups–tenured, tenure-track, and full-
time, non-tenure-track–as well as institutional leaders. Perceived characteristics
promoted and influenced by the participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in
decision-making emerged. These characteristics include the institutional context, the role
of leadership, building relationships, promoting shared responsibility, building
knowledge capacity, and improved organizational dynamics. As characteristics promoted
and influenced by participation in decision-making, they also diminished the traditional
systems of governance. The findings of this study include the following:
• The values and beliefs within an institution can influence the institutional
context and contribute to the development of a system that recognizes, values,
and reflects current faculty.
• Participatory decision-making is supported by an institutional structure and
environment that values the contributions of its various stakeholders:
administrators, tenured, tenure-track, and full-time, non-tenure-track faculty.
• Institutional leaders are in a key position to facilitate the participation of full-
time, non-tenure-track faculty in governance and decision-making. The role
of an institutional leader, such as a Department Chair, Dean, Associate
Provost, to name a few, is critical for providing a structure and creating an

135
environment where opportunities for participation are obtainable, encouraged,
supported, and valued.
• Through participation in governance and decision-making, full-time, non-
tenure-track faculty feel committed to and invested in the academic
community. They feel that they have a voice and that their ideas are valued.
• Participation in decision-making by full-time, non-tenure-track faculty builds
relationships and promotes shared responsibility between administrators,
tenured, tenure-track, and full-time, non-tenure-track faculty.
• Through participatory decision-making, administrators, tenured, tenure-track,
and full-time, non-tenure-track faculty gain a better understanding of each
other and the decision-making process.
• Participation in decision-making without an official vote can be frustrating
and disenfranchising for full-time, non-tenure-track faculty.
• Participation in decision-making by full-time, non-tenure-track faculty can
significantly build knowledge capacity and influence decision-making.
• Participatory decision-making improves organizational dynamics, including
respect, communication, collaboration, and collegiality.
• A symbiotic relationship exists between process and outcomes. Participatory
decision-making outcomes were found to greatly contribute to the process as
well.
These findings demonstrate that the participation of full-time, non-tenure-track
faculty in governance and decision-making is not only a phenomenon grounded in a

136
context of structures and a participative environment, but one that works within this
context and influences various interpersonal and organizational outcomes. These
outcomes also revert to the context and ultimately contribute to the participatory
decision-making process. Figure 5 is a representation of the study findings. The diagram
organizes the themes discussed and illustrates the relationship between context,
participatory decision-making, and its influence on outcomes; both interpersonal and
organizational. It also illustrates how the influenced outcomes then reinforce the context
and participatory decision-making.

137

Figure 5. Diagram of study findings reflecting the perceived outcomes of the
participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in governance and decision-making.
Participatory
Decision Making
Institutional
Structures
Environment
V
a
l
u
e
s
V
a
l
u
e
s
Institutional Leadership
Builds Relationships
&
Promotes Shared
Responsibility
Improves
Respect
Legend
Organizational outcome
Builds
Knowledge
Capacity
Influences
Decision Making
Diminishes
Traditional Systems
of Governance
Communication,
Collaboration, &
Collegiality
Gained Understanding
of One Another
Contribution to
Decision Making
V oice Valued
FTNTTF Feel
Committed,
Invested, &
Listened To
Individual outcome

138
Each of these outcomes are conducive to the participatory decision-making process,
promoted through the process, and ultimately reinforces the process as well.
Chapter Summary
In this chapter, results of the study were presented through themes that emerged
from the data. Findings regarding the participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty
in School-level decision-making were identified. The findings reflect the perceptions of
full-time, non-tenure-track faculty and their participation in decision-making as well as
the perceptions of various stakeholders regarding how full-time, non-tenure-track faculty
participation in decision-making affects organizational dynamics. A diagram that
demonstrates the interdependent relationship between the context, the process, and its
influenced outcomes was provided.
In the next and final chapter, I will discuss and present my analysis of the results.
I also will recommend future research and best practices for other institutions interested
in implementing the participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in their
governance and decision-making practices.

139
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter presents a discussion of the findings. The chapter begins with a
summary of the study, followed by a summary and discussion of the findings presented in
Chapter Four. Then implications for practice are presented, and the chapter concludes
with suggestions for future research.
Summary of the Study
The purpose of this qualitative study was to develop an understanding of the
perceptions of various stakeholders regarding the inclusion and participation of full-time,
non-tenure-track faculty in shared governance and decision-making. This study sought to
understand the experiences and perceptions of full-time non-tenure-track faculty and their
participation in decision-making. In addition, the study sought to identify how various
stakeholders perceive how the participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty
influences organizational dynamics.
This study explored an inclusive institution where full-time, non-tenure-track
faculty participates in governance and decision-making at the institutional, academic, and
departmental levels. The modified governance practices of the institution were examined
to understand how inclusion and participation of this faculty group might influence the
capacity for decision-making as well as organizational dynamics. Although governance
and decision-making can occur at the institutional, academic college, and departmental
levels, the focus of this study was at the academic college and departmental levels.

140
Review of the Findings
Upon analysis of the data collected through document analysis and participant
interviews, several findings emerged. The following section provides a summary of the
study findings and provides an illustration that was developed to organize the various
themes presented and to demonstrate the relationship between the institutional context,
participation in decision-making, and its perceived influence on outcomes.
Full-time, Non-Tenure-Track Faculty Perceptions
Participation in School-level governance and decision-making by full-time, non-
tenure-track faculty was promoted by the structures and environment present at IPU.
Developing permanent faculty positions for the full-time, non-tenure-track faculty at IPU
was due to the value held for these faculty members and recognition in the knowledge
and skills they possessed. These permanent faculty positions included a renewable-term
appointment as a Lecturer and a continuing faculty appointment as a Senior Lecturer.
The value for this faculty group was represented not only in the development of a
permanent position, but also in the structure of their faculty contract.
At IPU, Lecturers and Senior Lecturers have multi-year contracts. Lecturer
appointments are made for an initial three-year term, a second term of three years, and
subsequent terms of six years. Lecturers are eligible for promotion to Senior Lecturer
after a minimum of nine years of full-time service as a Lecturer at IPU. It is important to
note that renewal from term to term for a Lecturer and promotion to Senior Lecturer is
not automatic; processes and policies are in place for the renewal of each faculty
appointment. The commitment that IPU makes to the full-time, non-tenure-track faculty

141
group through the structure of the faculty contract sends a message about the value placed
on this faculty group.
A multi-year contract also provides the opportunity for full-time, non-tenure-track
faculty to realize their role and become a permanent member of the academic community,
where they can choose to participate in various groups and to evaluate policies and
practices. This continuous participation can provide for meaningful and purposeful
conversations.
IPU, through the structure, roles, and responsibilities that it assigns to the tenured,
tenure-track, and full-time, non-tenure-track faculty appointments, places a value on the
work of each faculty group. Tenured and tenure-track faculty responsibilities focus
primarily on their research, whereas full-time, non-tenure-track faculty responsibilities
focus on teaching. Service responsibilities across each appointment type provide the
opportunity for each faculty group to participate in various capacities across the
institutional, academic unit, and departmental levels.
An institutional structure and environment that values the contributions of its
various stakeholders, i.e., administrators, tenured, tenure-track, and full-time, non-tenure-
track faculty, supports their participation in governance and decision-making. Over time,
the roles of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty and the opportunities for their participation
in governance and decision-making have developed. The inclusion and participation of
full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in School-level governance and decision-making is a
reflection of their opportunity and eligibility to participate on governance committees and
decision-making groups at the institutional level. This became apparent by analyzing

142
institutional practices for governance as well as understanding the context in which
decision-making occurred. Of particular importance is the ability of full-time, non-
tenure-track faculty to serve on University Policy and Practice Committees. These
Committees are designed to address major University policy issues and ensure that proper
governance procedures are followed.
Full-time, non-tenure-track faculty have participated in governance and decision-
making as the Chair of the UPPC on Student Affairs, member of the UPPC on Academic
Affairs, and member of the UPPC on Faculty Affairs. In addition to these UPPCs, full-
time, non-tenure-track faculty have participated in governance and decision-making as
the President of the Faculty Senate, Chair and members of various institutional and
departmental level committees, Directors of various institutional and departmental level
programs, members of the Curriculum Committee, and members of the Evaluative
Committee. Inclusive Practices University, by providing opportunities such as these to
full-time, non-tenure-track faculty, makes a statement regarding the value placed on the
faculty’s knowledge, skills, and ability to make meaningful contributions to the overall
institution, its governance structures, and participatory environment. Consequently, this
diminishes traditional systems of governance, where only the tenured and tenure-track
faculty are deemed eligible to participate. Ultimately, the values and beliefs within the
institution influence institutional structures and shape the environment, providing an
atmosphere that supports the participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in
governance and decision-making.

143
Through these participative environments, full-time, non-tenure-track faculty feel
that they have a voice in the governance and decision-making process and that they are
valued, heard, and listened to. These feelings contribute to a positive faculty experience.
In addition, opportunities for participation in shared discussions and the ability to
contribute to decision-making invoke feelings of commitment and investment on behalf
of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty toward the academic community.
The role of an institutional leader, such as a Department Chair, Dean, and
Associate Provost, is to provide a structure and create an environment where
opportunities for participation are obtainable, encouraged, supported, and valued. Of the
11 participants in this study, seven of them identified the administrator as someone who
facilitates the participatory environment and decision-making process. These seven
individuals included administrators and tenured, tenure-track, and full-time, non-tenure-
track faculty participants. The perception of the institutional leader’s role is shared
across the various faculty appointment types as well as the administrators themselves.
One of the participants noted how the administrator within her department made it known
that, when it came to the department’s shared discussions, he was not assuming his
position of power as the administrator but was participating as one of them. He explained
that the table was circular and, therefore, had no head or lead. In this scenario, leadership
took form in the interactions between the individuals, rather than as a function of the
administrator’s actual authority as the leader.
The participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in governance and
decision-making is perceived to have an influence on the working relationships between

144
members of the academic community. The various opportunities to collaborate and
contribute to governance and decision-making provide the chance for administrators and
tenured, tenure-track, and full-time, non-tenure-track faculty to gain a better
understanding of each other. This improved understanding helps to build relationships
and promotes shared responsibility. Several participants, administrators, and tenured,
full-time, and non-tenure-track faculty noted that there is typically an explicit
commitment to the representation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in collaborative
discussions. Full-time, non-tenure-track faculty often provides multiple perspectives
based on their varied knowledge, skills, and experiences. It is through these shared
discussions that an improved understanding and appreciation of one another occurs and
relationships are promoted. In addition, developing a common purpose and shared
responsibility ensues.
When the voices of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty are brought to the forefront
and they feel their ideas are valued, they feel committed to and invested in the academic
community. They feel connected to a common purpose, to shared values and thoughts
that promote the academic community. It is important to note that, although a majority of
the full-time, non-tenure-track participants felt that their participation in governance and
decision-making enhanced their faculty experience, some noted concern and frustration
with the process.
Participation in decision-making without an official vote can be frustrating and
disenfranchising for full-time, non-tenure-track faculty. Although one of the Senior
Lecturers noted her appreciation in the ability to participate in search committees, at

145
times, she had no official voting capacity. For her, it was frustrating to feel that her
recommendation was not truly considered or even ignored after participating in the entire
process. Another Senior Lecturer commented on an experience in which he devoted an
exorbitant amount of time on a hiring committee for a senior-level administrative
decision. He was most frustrated and disenfranchised when the recommendation made
by the group was dismissed and the administration selected a candidate based on their
own preference. Members of the academic community need to be able to see that their
input has made a difference. Otherwise, when their contribution is unaccounted for or
ignored, their participation can lack meaning and purpose. This is specifically important
to the full-time, non-tenure-track faculty as the traditionally marginalized group. Not
having an official vote or having a vote and then having it ignored does not value the
individual or his or her time. The examples noted here left the faculty’s feeling
disenfranchised and discouraged from further participation. Ultimately, the academic
community loses the shared insights of some of their valuable members.
Participation in Decision Making and Organizational Dynamics
Administrators and tenured, tenure-track, and full-time, non-tenure-track faculty
perceive that the participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty contributes to
fostering organizational dynamics. The various stakeholders perceived that the
participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty benefits decision-making, builds
knowledge capacity, and diminishes traditional systems of governance. It became
evident, upon analysis of the data that these perceived outcomes also supported and
contributed to the process of decision-making.

146
One of the predominant findings in this study is the perception that the
participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty can significantly influence decision-
making and knowledge capacity. Seven of the 11 participants specifically emphasized
advantages of the participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty on decision-making.
Ten of the 11 participants discussed the value in the participation of full-time, non-
tenure-track faculty by building knowledge capacity, as each individual contributed
multiple perspectives as well as their ideas developed from their varied experiences. The
knowledge capacity that develops as a result of their participation became the resounding
and primary reason attributing to the advantages and benefits of their participation in
governance and decision-making. Several examples were provided in which full-time,
non-tenure-track faculty were able to contribute to discussions and share information that
was otherwise unfamiliar or unknown to other members within the group, leading, at
times, to changed outcomes.
The various stakeholders identified respect, communication, collaboration, and
collegiality as the most improved dynamics. Through gaining a better understanding of
one another, administrators and tenured, tenure-track, and full-time, non-tenure-track
faculty developed and increased their respect for each other. When individuals feel
respected and are confident in their ability to speak freely and communicate with others,
they are better able to collaborate and share responsibility toward a common purpose.
Together, respect, communication, and collaboration promote collegiality, which in turn
promotes relationships and encourages shared responsibility and cooperation among
group members.

147
Diminishing traditional systems of governance seemed a logical occurrence to the
administrators and tenured and full-time, non-tenure-track faculty. This was due, in part,
to their perception that the participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty provided
advantages to decision-making as a result of the knowledge capacity and improved
interpersonal and organizational dynamics. In addition, considering the permanent nature
of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty contracts at IPU, many of the Senior Lecturers have
been at IPU for many years. If they were not able to participate, the institution would run
the risk of losing valuable, experiential knowledge.
The findings demonstrate that the participation of full-time, non-tenure-track
faculty in governance and decision-making is a phenomenon grounded in an institutional
context of values, structures, and a participative environment. In addition, the
phenomenon works within the context and influences various interpersonal and
organizational outcomes. As such, these outcomes refer back to the context and
ultimately contribute to the participatory decision-making process. Figure 6 provides a
representation of study findings. The diagram organizes the various themes presented
and illustrates the perceived outcomes of the participation of full-time, non-tenure-track
faculty in governance and decision-making. It demonstrates the relationship between
context, participatory decision-making, and its influence on outcomes and how the
influenced outcomes then reinforce the context and participatory decision-making.

148

Figure 6. Diagram of study findings reflecting the perceived outcomes of the
participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in governance and decision-making.

Participatory
Decision Making
Institutional
Structures
Environment
V
a
l
u
e
s
V
a
l
u
e
s
Institutional Leadership
Builds Relationships
&
Promotes Shared
Responsibility
Improves
Respect
Legend
Organizational outcome
Builds
Knowledge
Capacity
Influences
Decision Making
Diminishes
Traditional Systems
of Governance
Communication,
Collaboration, &
Collegiality
Gained Understanding
of One Another
Contribution to
Decision Making
V oice Valued
FTNTTF Feel
Committed,
Invested, &
Listened To
Individual outcome

149
Discussion of Findings
Institutions of higher education are experiencing a substantial shift in the
academic workforce. During the past several decades, there has been significant growth
in the number of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty. This growth is coupled by a decline
in the tenured and tenure-track faculty groups (AAUP, 2006; Gappa & Trice, 2011;
Kezar & Sam, 2010). Despite this change in the academic workforce, there has been
unhurried, if any, modification to institutional structures, policies, and practices to reflect
and represent the growth of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty. As such, literature in the
area of actions taken to address the identified change and its potential implications for
governance systems, decision-making processes, and the academic community is limited.
This study addressed this gap in the literature and identified new approaches and
institutional practices to governance and decision-making processes that reflect the
change in the academic workforce. This study reveals that the participation of full-time,
non-tenure-track faculty in governance and decision-making is perceived to benefit and
influence the process as well as the academic community.
This study supports earlier studies by Dimond (1991) and Benjamin and Carroll
(1998), which noted that new approaches to decision-making processes had to be
considered, as current practices were ineffective. IPU has been continuously responsive
to the changing environment within their institution and, over time, has accommodated
governance practices to reflect the current faculty. It has developed a system that
provides for the participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in governance and
decision-making. With the proper attention, responsive academic decision-making

150
groups that accommodate the changing environment and meet contemporary
organizational needs can be developed (Eckel & Kezar, 2006). Through developing
values, structures, and practices that support the participation of full-time, non-tenure-
track faculty, IPU has developed an environment that offers openness and opportunities
for participation and action by all members of the academic community. These are
strategies and processes noted by scholars to promote the effectiveness and efficiency of
governance (AFT, 2006; Gappa et al., 2007; Gappa & Trice, 2011; Hanna, 2003; Kezar,
2004; Kezar et al., 2006c; Morrison, 2008; Scott, 2002).
As is the case at IPU, the values and beliefs within an institution can influence the
institutional context and contribute to the development of a governance system that
recognizes, values, and reflects current faculty. It is important that higher education
communities create an inclusive process and environment that respects all faculty
members in their work, regardless of their individual appointment type (Morrison, 2008).
Full-time, non-tenure-track faculty have not only steadily grown in numbers at IPU, but
have become integral members of the academic community. They participate in
governance bodies at the institutional, academic unit, and departmental levels and in
discussions regarding curriculum, policy, and various decisions that influence change.
As such, this study supports an emphasis by the AFT, NEA, and AAUP to promote an
institution’s inclusion of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in shared governance and
ensure that all faculty are given a guaranteed voice in decision-making and a role in
shaping policy (AFT, 2002). Through this participation in governance, faculty has a
voice in the development of policies that affect the work they perform and the quality of

151
their institutions (AFT, 2004; Tierney & Minor, 2003). As a result, both the academic
community and the faculty experiences are enriched.
Shared governance is conceptually designed to ensure shared responsibility for
decision-making through a participatory process. It is through these shared governance
opportunities that faculty, administrators, and governing bodies interact to make
academic decisions and influence change (Eckel & Kezar, 2006; Ehrenberg, 2000).
Leadership is viewed as a key element in maximizing the benefit of a participatory
approach to decision-making and effective governance. Institutional leaders help to
broaden perspectives, gain new insights, and achieve a better understanding among group
members by focusing on differences rather than on commonalities (Bensimon &
Neumann, 1993; Hashim et al., 2010; Kezar, 2004). Leadership takes form in the
interactions between individuals, rather than as a function of any actual authority as the
leader. This collaborative form of leadership is key to the shared decision-making
process (Spillane, 2005). Participants in this study consistently identified the role of the
institutional leader as instrumental in creating opportunities for equal participation,
building relationships among individuals, bringing the voice of full-time, non-tenure-
track faculty to the forefront, and valuing their multiple voices and diverse thought.
This study also supports findings from an earlier study by Gappa et al. (2007),
which emphasized that, when institutions of higher education foster inclusion and
collegial communication and provide opportunities for faculty members to make
connections with each other, the benefits accrue for both the institution and the individual
faculty members. The participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in governance

152
and decision-making at IPU provided several benefits, including enhanced decision-
making as influenced by increased knowledge capacity and improved interpersonal
relationships between all stakeholders–administrators and tenured, tenure-track, and full-
time, non-tenure-track faculty.
As noted in the literature, participation in decision-making increases the cognitive
complexity of the group by building knowledge capacity and providing multiple
perspectives and a greater opportunity for diverse thought. Participation by a diverse
group of individuals in collaborative thought, discussion, and decision-making will likely
be more effective as a result of multiple minds’ working together as a whole (Bartunek et
al., 1983; Bensimon & Neumann, 1993; Hatano & Inagaki, 1991; Hutchins, 1991). This
study provided several examples in which a full-time, non-tenure-track faculty member
made a contribution or provided information that influenced the decision-making of the
group. Administrators and tenured, tenure-track, and full-time, non-tenure-track faculty
alike shared these examples. Overall, each stakeholder saw the value in the participation
of the full-time, non-tenure-track faculty and the benefit their ideas had on the discussion
and decision to be made.
It is through these shared experiences and discussions that administrators and
tenured, tenure-track, and full-time, non-tenure-track faculty develop interpersonal
relationships. Through the various opportunities to participate, communicate, and
collaborate in governance and decision-making, these individuals gain a better
understanding of each other, build relationships, share responsibility, and develop
respect. As noted in the literature, working together in governance helps tenured, tenure-

153
track, and full-time, non-tenure-track faculty better understand each other’s interests as
well as build a stronger academic community (Kezar et al., 2006c). Working together
also helps to develop shared values and a common purpose among group members.
Practices that build relationships and promote shared responsibility, values, respect, and
trust among decision-making groups are vital to enhancing governance and improving
institutional operations (Birnbaum, 2000; Kezar, 2004).
Through experiences such as these, participatory decision-making improves
organizational dynamics, including respect, communication, collaboration, and
collegiality. Respect underlies all institutional efforts to provide an environment that
promotes personal and institutional growth and success (Gappa et al., 2007). Respect is
fostered as administrators and tenured, tenure-track, and full-time, non-tenure-track
faculty gain a better understanding of each other through the various opportunities for
participation. Respect is also promoted through the recognition that full-time, non-
tenure-track faculty receives for the knowledge, multiple perspectives, and varied
experiences they contribute to decision-making. When relationships among participants
in a group are tightened, the group becomes better able to work as a team and to develop
cognitively complex decisions; decisions that take into account more perspectives and
evidence (Kezar, 2004). Unless there are relationships of respect among team members,
communication and sharing of ideas will not occur (Kezar, 2004). Respect also was
noted as supporting communication, collaboration, and collegiality, each interdependent
of the other.

154
This study further supports the Gappa et al. (2007) study in that it was perceived
that respect creates an atmosphere conducive to communication by providing an
environment that is supportive and by fostering the confidence in full-time, non-tenure-
track faculty to speak freely. In the Gappa et al. study, it was noted that a culture of
respect and a commitment to shared responsibility from faculty members and
administrators alike are critical in fostering an environment where employment equity,
freedom of expression, flexibility, professional growth, and collegiality are part of faculty
work and the academic workplace. When individuals feel respected and they are
confident and secure in their ability to communicate with others, opportunities for
collaboration are possible. It is through respect for the individual as well as the
communication and collaboration between administrators and tenured, tenure-track, and
full-time, non-tenure-track faculty that relationships and shared responsibility take shape
between them and they are able to engage and participate in decision-making,
irrespective of their rank. As such, respect, communication, and collaboration can
promote collegiality within the academic community, where individuals encourage each
other for their work and contributions.
Of critical importance, is that through participation and by developing
interpersonal relationships, issues of concern surrounding participation in governance and
decision-making can be overcome. A lack of academic freedom, a bifurcated workforce,
and the demise of tenure were noted as concerns for the participation of full-time, non-
tenure-track faculty. Each of the aforementioned outcomes of participation contributes to
a favorable enhancement of each of these concerns.

155
Academic freedom provides the liberty for individuals to express their ideas
freely, however critical, without fear of consequence or repercussion (Scott, 2002). As
individuals typically on annual contracts, full-time, non-tenure-track faculty can be
hesitant and often resistant to being critical in discussions for fear of contract non-
renewal. Participants in this study, felt that the participatory environment provided full-
time, non-tenure-track faculty the space to speak freely and share their thoughts and
opinions without fear of repercussion or consequence. In addition, full-time, non-tenure-
track faculty considered the structure of their multi-year contract advantageous to their
ability to truly embrace their role as faculty and contribute to the academic community
over time, rather than annual increments. Their having a voice and the protection
afforded by a multi-year contract, promoted their academic freedom.
Through participatory decision-making, the bifurcated workforce, the us-versus-
them mentality, and the feelings of second-class citizenry seem to disappear as
relationships are built and responsibility is shared across the faculty groups. Full-time,
non-tenure-track faculty feels valued, committed, and invested. Administrators and
tenured faculty find value and expertise in the participation of full-time, non-tenure-track
faculty. Therefore diminishing a hierarchical view of authority (Kezar et al., 2006c;
Morrison, 2008) and promoting alternative processes of decision-making (Bensimon &
Neumann, 1993; Miller & Katz, 2004).
Through the structures and practices designed to accommodate the participation
of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty, tenure can be upheld and promoted as a feature of
faculty employment. In this study, faculty contracts were designed to outline specific

156
roles and responsibilities for the appointment types. As such, tenured and tenure-track
faculty contracts emphasized research while full-time, non-tenure-track contracts
emphasized teaching. This structure provides an individual the opportunity to pursue the
faculty appointment they prefer while simultaneously having the opportunity to be a
participating member of governance and decision-making within the academic
community.
As was noted in the literature, it is critical to understand that participation and
discussion in decision-making alone are not sufficient while building communities and
developing strong relationships among members of the academic community. Among
the findings of a study conducted by Tierney and Minor (2003), indifference and a lack of
trust were identified as the most significant barriers to meaningful faculty participation.
Individuals reported that “meaningful involvement [was] difficult when the faculty voice
[was] not respected and shared governance [was] not taken seriously” (p.18).
Considering that one of the key, perceived benefits to the participation of full-time, non-
tenure-track faculty was their shared insights, actions that discourage participation might
need to be minimized.
Opportunities for participation need to be thoughtful, meaningful, and purposeful
for all participants. Minimally, participants would need to see that their input has been
taken into consideration for their involvement to be considered legitimate (Kezar, 2004),
although having an official vote might be a stronger approach for legitimacy.
Participation without a vote, while appreciated for the sake of discussion and
collaboration, can be frustrating for full-time, non-tenure-track faculty. To continue to

157
build capacity for decision-making and truly value the voice of this faculty group, the
institution’s providing them with an official vote would provide greater confidence.
When full-time, non-tenure-track faculty members feel more connected to and valued by
the institution, they are positioned to contribute more meaningfully (Gappa et al., 2007;
Gappa & Trice, 2011). Actions such as these are important for building relationships and
promoting shared responsibility and respect. As described by Kezar (2004), when
relationships among individuals in a decision-making group are strengthened, the group
becomes better equipped to work as a team and to make cognitively complex decisions.
Participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in shared governance and
decision-making at IPU appears to support Bensimon and Neumann’s (1993) team
process model. The focus in a team process is on interconnectedness and working
collaboratively rather than on emphasizing individual members, all of whom are equal
and deserve respect. Teams consist of a group of diverse individuals, such as tenured,
tenure-track, and full-time, non-tenure-track faculty, who assume different thinking roles
and engage in conversations that are conducive to organizational learning (Bensimon &
O’Neil, 1998). The various opportunities available to full-time, non-tenure-track faculty
for participation in governance and decision-making at IPU provide for collaboration and
interconnectedness between administrators and tenured, tenure-track, and full-time, non-
tenure-track faculty. Through its values, structures, and practices, IPU has developed a
team process within its governance and decision-making systems.
The team model also emphasizes the critical function that leadership plays in the
development of a responsive, collaborative, and participative environment, where

158
relationships can develop and quality interactions prosper. An ideal leader, as defined by
Bensimon and Neumann (1993), is an individual “who knows how to find and bring
together diverse minds–minds that reflect variety in their points of view, thinking
processes, and question-asking and problem-solving strategies” (p. 1). Through the team
process, leaders play a critical role in broadening individual members’ understandings of
each other’s views.
Developing shared responsibility and values among and across team members is
noted as a necessary element for teamwork. As a collaborative model, the team process
also develops a sense of shared responsibility between its members (Bensimon &
Neumann, 2003). Regardless of appointment type, faculty engaged in teamwork will
focus on ideas and on what they can do collectively about problems that belong to all of
them. Valuing a variety of perspectives, experiences, and beliefs among a diverse group
of individuals emphasizes the need for relationships, trust, and respect. As stated by
Bensimon and Neumann, “An ethos of collaborative teamwork demands a lessening of
status differences” (p. 111). Individual understanding of their own and each other’s roles
in relation to their group influences their feelings about whether they truly belong to the
group. The more connected, involved, and considered individuals feel within a team, the
more they feel that they truly belong and that their ideas and contributions are valued.
The team model also highly values generating multiple and diverse perspectives
among team members (Bensimon & Neumann, 1993). Although differences and various
interpretations will exist among team members, they are considered an advantage, as
multiple minds that work together will be much more complex than one mind that works

159
alone (Bensimon & Neumann, 1993; Hastie & Pennington, 1991; Kezar et al., 2006b).
Teams “appreciate the diverse interpretations team members bring to issues before the
team” (Bensimon & Neumann, 1993, p. 125). The social interaction that takes place
within and among a team and its members plays an important role in the acquisition of
knowledge (Bartunek et al., 1983; Hatano & Inagaki, 1991; Resnick, 1991). Using the
acquired knowledge, as influenced through the knowledge capacity of the team, informs
decision-making and becomes a critical function of participatory decision-making.
As a medium-sized, private institution, IPU might be in a unique position to
revisit and accommodate its governance structures and practices on a continual basis. In
addition, as a private institution, they may possess ideals and values that inherently
influence the structures and environment in which they function. Institutions that look to
respond to the shift in the academic workforce or simply to design new approaches to
governance structures may find that institutional structures, values, or the environment
are not able to support the change. Nevertheless, institutions might be able to identify
and engage in practices that complement their specific setting by implementing
Bensimon and Neumann’s (1993) team process framework. Redesigning organizational
structures to promote work in groups or teams is a strategy cited to develop a responsive,
academic decision-making process (Bensimon & Neumann, 1993; Kezar, Carducci, &
Contreras-McGavin, 2006b). Over time, work in teams might potentially influence
overall institutional practice.

160
Implications for Practice
Findings from this study indicate that the participation of full-time, non-tenure-
track faculty in governance and decision-making influence various stakeholders, their
department, and their academic unit, as well as on the institution. It also became evident
that elements that promote the participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in
governance and decision-making, such as leadership, development of shared
responsibility and values, and generation of multiple and diverse perspectives, were
strengthened within the participatory decision-making process. Taken together, these
elements can lead to strategic actions that an institution, its administrators, and its faculty
could take to improve their academic working environments, enhance meaningfulness
and commitment for faculty, and strengthen institutional excellence.
This context specific study informs other private, medium-sized, comprehensive
institutions looking to develop a process for governance that recognizes and values full-
time, non-tenure-track faculty. Establishing full-time, non-tenure-track faculty as a
significant group within an institution of higher education was of particular importance in
this study. The contributions of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty were noted and
identified as essential for governance and decision-making. Their knowledge and skills
were highly valued and the institutional context was responsive in acknowledging them.
Through acknowledging full-time, non-tenure-track faculty’s knowledge and
expertise and creating opportunities for their participation, institutions can develop an
environment where respect, communication, and collaboration emerge. As the study
demonstrates, through participation and shared discussions, administrators, tenured, and

161
full-time, non-tenure-track faculty gains a better understanding of one another and values
each other’s voices. Relationships are fostered and shared responsibility of a common
purpose is developed. Through the various contributions to decision-making, individuals
can see how they each bring multiple perspectives and different experiences to the
discussion. Through developing an environment of respect, communication, and
collaboration, collegiality among the members of the academic community is also
promoted.
Institutions looking to develop a responsive system of governance might look at
fostering these values within the academic community by developing structures and
promoting an environment that support the role of this faculty group within the
institution, its academic units, and its respective departments. Of initial importance
might be the altering of the full-time, non-tenure-track faculty contract from a traditional
year-to-year contract to a multi-year contract. In making a multi-year commitment to
full-time, non-tenure-track faculty, the institution sends a value message to both the full-
time, non-tenure-track faculty as well as to the administrators and tenured and tenure-
track faculty.
A multi-year contract provides the opportunity for full-time, non-tenure-track
faculty to become permanent members of the academic community and to fully realize
their role as faculty; to exercise their academic freedom. This commitment by the
institution to full-time, non-tenure-track faculty helps them feel committed and invested
in the institution. By becoming permanent members, they can choose to participate in
various groups and to evaluate policies and practices over time. Eliminating the annual

162
contract renewal process provides the opportunity for them to express their ideas freely
without fear of consequence or repercussion. They can call established beliefs into
question, oppose a popular decision, and be critical of thoughts and ideas shared during
the decision-making process.
In addition to establishing a multi-year contract for full-time, non-tenure-track
faculty, reassigning faculty duties across each appointment type contract also might prove
beneficial. At IPU, the full-time, non-tenure-track faculty contract was designed to have
a larger emphasis on teaching, 70%, and smaller emphasis on scholarship and service,
each with 15%. The tenured and tenure-track faculty contracts were designed to have a
balanced emphasis on teaching and scholarship, with 40% each, and a smaller emphasis
on service, at 20%. As one participant commented, this sort of contract structure
provides for full-time, non-tenure-track faculty to focus on teaching, while freeing up the
tenured and tenure-track faculty to focus on their scholarship and research. In addition,
for a majority of the full-time, non-tenure-track faculty participants in this study, the
service component was met through various administrative responsibilities as well as in
serving on various committees at the departmental, academic unit, or institutional level.
Administrative responsibilities included directing academic programs, directing
institutional level programs, chairing various committees, and advising students. Not
having to manage these various administrative responsibilities provided the tenured and
tenure-track faculty the opportunity to focus on their research and teaching.
In addition to developing contracts to recognize and value the contributions of
full-time, non-tenure-track faculty, the institution needs to develop opportunities for these

163
faculty members to participate in governance. Opportunities for participation would be
provided at the institutional, academic unit, and departmental levels. Institutions might
look to their current systems of governance, and identify those bodies in which they place
great value, e.g., the Faculty Senate, and discuss how full-time, non-tenure-track faculty
might participate. One might argue that full participation, i.e., having a voice and official
vote in decisions, would be a move in the right direction. When identifying governance
and decision-making bodies and promoting the participation of full-time, non-tenure-
track faculty, the institution would do well to ensure that the faculty’s participation would
be purposeful and significant and that their voices and experience can provide meaningful
perspectives. Over time, these values, structures, and participatory environments can
improve the academic working environments and enhance meaningfulness and
commitment for faculty.
The diagram developed and provided in this study-see Figure 5 or 6-could be used
as a tool by institutions looking to develop a process for governance that recognizes and
values full-time, non-tenure-track faculty. Of critical importance is the context within
which governance practices function. Although not a process model, there are guiding
questions that institutions, the academic units, and departments could consider when
developing a responsive system of governance. When considering the context at the
institutional, academic unit, or departmental level, one might consider the following
questions:

164
• How does the existing institutional structure account for full-time, non-tenure-
track faculty? In what capacity does the existing structure place a value on the
knowledge, skills, and expertise of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty?
• How do institutional documents (i.e. faculty handbook) identify and express
the role of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty within the academic
community? Is this identified role reflected in institutional, academic unit,
and departmental practices? Are practices comparable within the academic
community?
• What is the structure of the full-time, non-tenure-track faculty contract? Do
the terms of the contract (i.e. duration of contract) provide an opportunity for
full-time, non-tenure-track faculty to become permanent members of the
academic community? To fully realize their role as faculty? To exercise their
academic freedom?
• How might the roles and various responsibilities of each appointment type
establish the value placed in each faculty appointment?
• In what ways does the governance structure facilitate and provide the
opportunity for full-time, non-tenure-track faculty to participate in
governance? How might governance practices be altered to enable their
participation? What are specific governance structures in which full-time,
non-tenure-track faculty participation could occur?

165
• How might structures and the environment in which they function influence
the value held for full-time, non-tenure-track faculty among the academic
community and its members?
• In what ways are the various contributions of full-time, non-tenure-track
faculty made visible within the institution, its academic units, and
departments?
• How might practices at the institutional, academic unit, and departmental level
provide opportunities for administrators, tenured, tenure-track, and full-time,
non-tenure-track faculty to engage in participatory decision-making? To
participate, communicate, collaborate, and contribute to shared discussions?
When considering the role of the institutional leader, one might consider the following
questions:
• In what ways can a leader at the institutional, academic unit, and departmental
level create environments conducive for and supportive of participation?
Environments where there are opportunities for equal participation, where
relationships can develop, and quality interactions prosper?
• How might institutional leaders foster an environment in which members of
decision-making groups value the voice and contribution of all its members?
An environment that brings together diverse minds? Minds that reflect variety
in their points of view, thinking processes, and problem-solving strategies?
How might the voice of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty be brought to the
forefront and their multiple voices and diverse ideas valued?

166
• In what ways can an institutional leader create a responsive, transparent,
collaborative, and participative environment where individual members
broaden their understanding of each other’s views? Where shared
responsibility between members is developed? Where work in teams is
promoted?
When considering the elements identified as outcomes of the process, one could consider
the following questions:
• How might opportunities to communicate and collaborate be provided and
promoted for the various stakeholders?
• How might the various stakeholders develop a sense of shared responsibility
among the individuals within the department, academic unit, and across the
institution? How might the institution promote a common purpose?
• In what ways do the members of decision-making groups build knowledge
capacity? Does the group consist of a “representative democracy”? Will
members have different perspectives, multiple views, and diverse experiences
to draw from and contribute?
• How might the institution foster an environment of collegiality among its
various stakeholders?
• In what ways are the opportunities for full-time, non-tenure-track faculty’s
participation meaningful? How might full-time, non-tenure-track faculty
describe their experience? Will full-time, non-tenure-track faculty feel as

167
though their voice is valued, that they are listened to, and that they are making
an impact through their participation?
While these guiding questions are not comprehensive, in that they do not include every
question an institution might need to address when developing their governance
processes, they might assist in initial conversations and planning processes. Responses
could provide a foundation from which further work and progress could develop.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study focused on the perceptions that various stakeholders held regarding the
participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in governance and decision-making at
the academic unit level. In addition, the study focused on specific departments within
each academic unit, specifically, departments with large numbers of full-time, non-
tenure-track faculty. It is important to note that, as governance practices differ across
institutions, so can practices differ across departments and academic units within a single
institution. Although this study focused on the Departments of English and Education
within the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences (CLAS) and School of Education (SOE),
respectively, it could be that other departments within the CLAS and the SOE as well as
academic units within IPU had differing views and practices when it came to governance
and decision-making and the participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty. As
such, this study was limited in scope.
A future study might include departments within the CLAS and SOE in which the
number of tenured and tenure-track faculty are larger than full-time, non-tenure-track. As
the largest College on the IPU campus, the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences has

168
numerous departments. Among them are those that have a larger number of tenured and
tenure-track faculty than full-time, non-tenure-track faculty, while other departments
have a more balanced number of tenured and tenure-track faculty. However, the number
of tenure-track faculty within most departments was still proportionally lower than that of
full-time, non-tenure-track faculty. As was the case in this study, obtaining their
participation and perspective could prove challenging. Nonetheless, it would be
important to understand the views and perspectives of the various stakeholders within
these other departments. Would the administrators and tenured, tenure-track, and full-
time, non-tenure-track faculty in these departments hold the same value and appreciation
of the participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty? Is the value of their
participation shared within individual departments, or is it shared across the academic
unit? Further, if perceptions vary within these various departments, e.g., some value
participation and some do not, how might the role of the institutional leader influence
these perceptions?
It became evident that academic units and departments outside of the CLAS and
the SOE consider the discussion regarding the participation of full-time, non-tenure-track
faculty in governance and decision-making as a distraction and rather unnecessary. The
perception among these units and departments is that members would rather get their
research done and promote their department through scholarship. This academic unit and
its respective departments appear to have a larger number of tenured and tenure-track
faculty than of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty. There are still a considerable number
of Lecturers, but not as many as in other academic units at IPU. As such, a larger scale

169
study across several other academic units and departments at IPU would be informative.
Why are academic units and departments permitted to continue in this traditional system
when the institution values and has designed structures for a participative democracy?
Why are these departments opposed to inclusion? Considering that the system at IPU
provides faculty contracts where research and teaching are clearly defined across faculty
ranks, why have these academic units and departments not embraced this structure?
It would be informative to study the governance practices at IPU at the
institutional level. Conducting a study on the history of governance at IPU would be
beneficial. It would be useful to know and fully understand how the inclusion and
continual progression of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in governance was developed.
Further, it would be valuable to know and understand how members of the Faculty
Senate, University Governance Coordinating Committee, and the various Faculty Senate
and University Policy and Practice Committees perceived the participation of full-time,
non-tenure-track faculty in influencing governance and decision-making. In addition, it
might be useful to know how these participatory environments are transferred to the
academic units within IPU. Is there discussion on how governance and decision-making
can be shared at the academic unit level?
As a private, medium-sized, comprehensive institution, IPU is in a unique
position to influence change and implement practices. Conducting this study at a larger,
private institution or a medium-sized public institution might provide valuable insights
into how institutional capacity or sector might affect the participation of full-time, non-

170
tenure-track faculty in governance and decision-making, the perceived influence it might
have on the process, those involved, and the outcomes.
In addition to institutional capacity or sector, a study among institutions with
varying organizational cultures might also provide valuable insights. As an institution
that values social justice and works within its principles, IPU practices may reflect and
function within an organizational culture that is quite different than most other
institutions. It would be informative to understand how this phenomenon is implemented
within different organizational cultures as well as how members of the academic
community experience and perceive the phenomenon within the context.
Although this study focused on the participation of full-time, non-tenure-track
faculty, many different dynamics likely affect governance and decision making within
institutions. These various dynamics should each be explored in future studies. Among
the dynamics to explore are the following:
• Voluntary versus involuntary full-time, non-tenure-track faculty and
comparing their responses. Do faculty in full-time, non-tenure-track positions
take on this faculty appointment by choice or for other reasons? If an
individual were given the option to assume a tenure-track position, would he
or she take it? Why or why not?
• An observation study to see who speaks in governance, on what topics, and
how long individuals speak would be informative. Who listens to whom?
Who might be influencing the discussion? Are there inconsistencies in

171
participation due to appointment type, gender, culture, types of decisions
being made?
• Comparing weak and strong campus governance systems. It would be
valuable to see and understand how full-time, non-tenure-track faculty
introduction into governance works. What processes were utilized to
implement this phenomenon? How did the institutional context, its structures,
culture, and values, facilitate the process?
Considering that governance practices not only vary in process, but implementation as
well, conducting these studies at a single institution or across multiple sites would be
informative.
Conclusion
The findings of this study indicate that institutions can develop systems that
address, value, recognize, and reflect current faculty. Further, the participatory nature of
the shared governance and decision-making systems developed were perceived to have
favorable outcomes across the various participants; i.e., administrators and tenured,
tenure-track, and full-time, non-tenure-track faculty.
This case study provides a contribution to the scarcity of literature available
regarding the inclusion of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in the shared governance
and decision-making process and the influence that participation could have on the
institution, its individual members, and the overall academic community. As this is a
growing faculty group within institutions of higher education, it was important to

172
understand ways in which they could further contribute to an institution as well as how
their contribution and participation affects the organization.

173
REFERENCES

Allen, D., Calkin, J., & Peterson, M. (1988). Making shared governance work: A
conceptual model. JONA, 18(1), 37-43.
Altbach, P. (2004). Globalization and the university: Myths and realities in an unequal
world. Tertiary Education and Management, 10, 3-25.
American Association of University Professors. (1966). Statement on government of
colleges and universities. Retrieved from
http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/policydocs/
contents/governancestatement.htm
American Association of University Professors. (2001). Evaluation of shared
governance. Retrieved from
http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/issues/governance/goveval.htm
American Association of University Professors. (2003). Contingent appointments and the
academic profession. Retrieved from
http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/policydocs/ contents/conting-stmt.htm
American Association of University Professors. (2006). AAUP contingent faculty index
2006. Washington, DC: American Association of University Professors.
Retrieved from http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/research/conind2006.htm
American Association of University Professors (2011). It’s not over yet. The annual
report on the economic status of the profession, 2010-2011. Washington, DC:
American Association of University Professors. Retrieved from
http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/comm/rep/Z/ecstatreport10-11/

174
American Federation of Teachers. (2002). AFT resolutions: Shared governance in
colleges and universities. Retrieved from
http://www.aft.org/about/resolution_detail.cfm?articleid=217
American Federation of Teachers. (2006). Shared governance in colleges and
universities. Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO.
Retrieved from http://www.aft.org/pdfs/highered/sharedgovernance0806.pdf
American Federation of Teachers. (2007). Academic freedom in the 21
st
-century college
and university. Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO.
Retrieved from
http://www.aft.org/pdfs/highered/academicfreedomstatement0907.pdf
Anderson, G. (2007). Experiences in academic governance and decision-making of full-
time nontenure track faculty in communications fields. (Doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from Proquest. (1404348321)
Askling, B., & Stensaker, B. (2002). Academic leadership: Prescriptions, practices, and
paradoxes. Tertiary Education and Management, 8(2), 113-125.
doi:10.1023/A:1015612510179
Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. (2010). Board
responsibility for institutional governance. Washington, DC: Association of
Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. Retrieved from
http://agb.org/statement-board-responsibility-institutional-governance
Austin, A. E. (1990). Faculty cultures, faculty values. New Directions for Institutional
Research, 68, 61-74.

175
Baldwin, R. G., & Chronister, J. L. (2001). Teaching without tenure: Policies and
practices for a new era. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University.
Bartunek, J. M., Gordon, J. R., & Weathersby, R. P. (1983). Developing “complicated”
understanding in administrators. The Academy of Management Review, 8(2), 273-
284.
Benjamin, R., & Carroll, S. J. (1998). Breaking the social contract: The fiscal crisis in
California higher education. Santa Monica, CA: Council for Aid to Education.
Benjamin, E., Hollinger, D. A., & Knight, J. (2005). Professors of practice. Academe,
91(1), 60-61.
Bensimon, E. M., & Neumann, A. (1993). Redesigning collegiate leadership. Baltimore,
MD: Johns Hopkins Press.
Bensimon, E. M., & O'Neil, H. F., Jr. (1998). Collaborative effort to measure faculty
work. Liberal Education, 84(4), 22-31.
Bess, J. L., & Dee, J. R. (2008). Chapter 11: Organizational culture. In Understanding
college and university administration (pp. 359-396). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Bieri, J., & Blacker, E. (1956). The generality of cognitive complexity in the perception
of people and inkblots. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 53(1), 112-
117.
Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and
leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

176
Birnbaum, R. (1999). The dilemma of presidential leadership. In P. G. Altbach, R. O.
Berdahl, & P. J. Gumport (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first
century: Social, political, and economic challenges (pp. 323-346). Baltimore,
MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Birnbaum, R. (2000). Management fads in higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Bland, C. J., Center, B. A., Finstad, D. A., & Risbey, K. R. (2006). The impact of
appointment type on the productivity and commitment of full-time faculty in
research and doctoral institutions. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(1), 89-
123. doi:10.1353/jhe.2006.0002
Burgan, M. (2006). What ever happened to the faculty? Drift and decision in higher
education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Center for Collaborative Policy. (2008). Shared governance in higher education:
Structural and cultural responses to a changing national climate. Sacramento,
CA: W. Leach.
Coleman, J. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Conway, J. A. (1984). The myth, mystery, and mastery of participative decision making
in education. Educational Administration Quarterly, 20(3), 11-40.
doi:10.1177/0013161X84020003003
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

177
Curtis, J. W., & Jacobe, M. F. (2006). Consequences: An increasingly contingent faculty
(Research Report AAUP Contingent Faculty Index). Retrieved from
http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/research/conind2006.htm
Dimond, J. (1991). Faculty involvement in institutional budgeting. New Directions for
Higher Education, 75, 63-78. doi:10.1002/he.36919917506
Driscoll, J. W. (1978). Trust and participation in organizational decision making as
predictors of satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 21(1), 44-56.
Eckel, P. D., & Kezar, A. (2006). Chapter 1: The challenges facing academic decision
making: Contemporary issues and steadfast structures. In P. D. Eckel (Ed.), The
shifting frontiers of academic decision making (pp. 1-14). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Ehrenberg, R.G. (2000). Who is in charge of the university? In Tuition rising: Why
colleges cost so much (pp. 19-31). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
El-Khawas, E. (1995). Where is the faculty voice in recent academic decisions? Tertiary
Education and Management, 1(1), 31-35.
Floyd, C. E. (1994). Faculty participation and shared governance. The Review of Higher
Education, 17(2), 197-209.
French, D. (1997, April 28). History of the lecturer system at [IPU] [Letter to Women
Faculty Group]. Copy in possession of a participant from the study.
Gaff, J. G. (2007). What if the faculty really do assume responsibility for the educational
program? Liberal Education, 93(4), 6-13.
Gappa, J. M., Austin, A. E., & Trice, A .G. (2007). Rethinking faculty work: Higher
education’s strategic imperative. San Francisco, CA: J. Wiley and Sons.

178
Gappa, J. M., & Leslie, D. W. (1993). The invisible faculty. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Gappa, J. M., & Trice, A. G. (2011). Rethinking faculty work and workplaces for
women. On Campus With Women, 37(3). Retrieved from
http://www.aacu.org/ocww/volume37_3/fromwhereisit.cfm?section=2
Hanna, D. E. (2003). Building a leadership vision. Eleven strategic challenges for higher
education. Educause Review, 38(4), 24-28, 30-34.
Harper, E. P., Baldwin, R .G., Gansneder, B. G., & Chronister, J. L. (2001). Full-time
women faculty off the tenure track: profile and practice. Review of Higher
Education, 3(24), 237-257.
Hashim, F., Alam, G. M., & Siraj, S. (2010). Information and communication technology
for participatory based decision-making. E-management for administrative
efficiency in higher education. International Journal of Physical Sciences, 5(4),
383-392.
Hastie, R., & Pennington, M. (1991). Cognitive and social processes in decision making.
In L. Resnick, J. Levine, & S. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared
cognition (pp. 308-327). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
doi: 10.1037/10096-013
Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1991). Sharing cognition through collective comprehension
activity. In L. Resnick, J. Levine, & S. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially
shared cognition (pp. 331-348). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association. doi:10.1037/10096-014

179
Hoppe, S. L., & Speck, B. W. (Eds.). (2004). Identifying and preparing academic
leaders: New directions for higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Hutchins, E. (1991). The social organization of distributed cognition. In L. Resnick, J.
Levine, & S. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 283-
307). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10096-
012
Inclusive Practices University. (2002). Faculty handbook, policies, and procedures.
Retrieved from Inclusive Practices University website:
http://www.ipu.edu/provost/policy/handbook/
Inclusive Practices University. (2008a). University committees. Retrieved from Inclusive
Practices University website:
http://www.ipu.edu/governance/committees/index.cfm
Inclusive Practices University. (2008b). University policy and practice committees
charter. Retrieved from Inclusive Practices University website:
http://www.ipu.edu/governance/committees/policy.cfm
Inclusive Practices University. (2011a). Inclusive practices university, faculty/staff 2010.
Retrieved from http://www.ipu.edu/about/faculty.cfm
Inclusive Practices University. (2011b). Inclusive practices university, schools and
colleges. Retrieved from http://www.ipu.edu/academics/schools.cfm
Inclusive Practices University. (2011c, October). Protocols, policies, and procedures:
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. Retrieved from Inclusive Practices
University website: http://www.ipu.edu/cas/facultyandstaff/protocols.cfm

180
Inclusive Practices University. (2011d, October). School of Education protocols, policies,
and procedures. Retrieved from Inclusive Practices University website:
http://www.ipu.edu/ecppm/about/
Jaschik, S. (2006, March 6). Moving to “conversion/” Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/03/06/aftnea
Jenkins, R., & Jensen, B. (2010). How to climb down from top-down leadership.
Academic Online, 96(3). Retrieved from
http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2010/MJ/feat/jenk.htm
Kezar, A. (2004). What is more important to effective governance: Relationships, trust,
and leadership, or structures and formal processes? In W. Tierney (Ed.), New
Directions for Higher Education (pp. 35-46). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kezar, A., Carducci, R., & Contreras-McGavin, M. (2006). Rethinking the “L” word in
higher education: The revolution of research on leadership. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. D. (2002). The effect of institutional culture on change strategies
in higher education. University principles or culturally responsive concepts? The
Journal of Higher Education, 73(4), 435-460.
Kezar, A., Lester, J. & Anderson, G. (2006). Challenging stereotypes that interfere with
effective governance. Thought and Action, 22(2), 121-134.
Kezar, A., Lester, J., Carducci, R., Gallant, T. B., & McGavin, M. C. (2007). Where are
the faculty leaders? Liberal Education, 93(4), 14-21.

181
Kezar, A., & Sam, C. (2010). Understanding the new majority of non-tenure-track faculty
in higher education: Demographics, experiences, and plans of action. Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley Periodicals.
Kezar, A. J., & Eckel, P. D. (2004). Meeting today’s governance challenges: A synthesis
of literature and examination of a future agenda for scholarship. The Journal of
Higher Education, 75(4), 371-399. doi:10.1353/jhe.2004.0022
Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating
interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 67-93.
Lam, S. S. K., Chen, X. P., & Schaubroeck, J. (2002). Participative decision making and
employee performance in different cultures: The moderating effects of
allocentrism/idiocentrism and efficacy. The Academy of Management Journal,
45(5), 905-914.
Lane, C. (1998). Theories and issues in the study of trust. In C. Lane & R. Bachmann
(Eds.), Trust within and between organizations (pp. 1-30). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Lattuca, L .R. (2005). Faculty work as learning: Insights from theories of cognition. New
Directions for Teaching and Learning, 102, 13-21.
Lowin, A. (1968). Participative decision making: A model, literature critique, and
prescriptions for research. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3,
68-106.
Merriam, S. B. (2001). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

182
Miller, M., & Katz, M. (2004). Effective shared governance: Academic governance as a
win-win proposition. The NEA 2004 Almanac of Higher Education. Retrieved
from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.163.1755&rep=
rep1&type=pdf
Minor, J. T. (2003). Assessing the senate: Critical issues considered. American
Behavioral Scientist, 46(7), 960-977.
Minor, J. T. (2004). Understanding faculty senates: Moving from mystery to models. The
Review of Higher Education, 27(3), 343-363.
Mishra, A. K. (1996). Organizational responses to crisis: The centrality of trust. In R. M.
Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morrison, J. D. (2008). Faculty governance and nontenure-track appointments. New
Directions for Higher Education, 143, 21-27. doi:10.1002/he.309
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2009). Santa Clara University. Retrieved
from http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/Snapshotx.aspx?unitId=acadadb4aeac
National Education Association. (1989a). Faculty governance in higher education. NEA
Policy Statements. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/home/34743.htm
National Education Association. (1989b). Statement on community college governance.
NEA Policy Statements. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/home/34767.htm
National Education Association. (2002). Part-time and temporary faculty. NEA Policy
Statements. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/home/34762.htm

183
Neumann, A. (1991). The thinking team: Toward a cognitive model of administrative
teamwork in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 62(5), 485-513.
Olson, G. A. (2009, July 23). Exactly what is “shared governance”? The Chronicle of
Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Exactly-What-Is-
Shared/47065/
O’Reilly, C. A. I., & Roberts, K .H. (1977). Task group structure, communication, and
effectiveness in three organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(6), 674-
681. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.62.6.674
Organizational dynamics. (2011). In Cambridge Dictionaries online. Retrieved from
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/business-english/organizational-
dynamics
Parker, L. E., & Price, R. H. (1994). Empowered managers and empowered workers: The
effects of managerial support and managerial perceived control on workers’ sense
of control over decision making. Human Relations, 47(8), 911-928.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990).
Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers’ trust in leader,
satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership Quarterly, 1(2),
107-142. doi:10.1016/1048-9843(90)90009-7
Provost Office (2011, February 1). Faculty appointment policies implementation. IPU
Faculty Handbook, Appendix.

184
Putnam, R. (1993). Making democracy work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Resnick, L. (1991). Shared cognition: Thinking as social practice. In L. Resnick, J.
Levine,, & S. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 1-
20). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10096-
018
Sanders, J. R. (1981). Case study methodology: A critique. In W. W. Welsh (Ed.), Case
study methodology in educational evaluation. Proceedings from 1981: Minnesota
Evaluation Conference. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Research and Evaluation
Center.
Scott, W. A. (1962). Cognitive complexity and cognitive flexibility. Sociometry, 25(4),
405-414.
Scott, J. W. (2002). The critical state of shared governance. Academe Online. Retrieved
from http://aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2002/JA/Feat/Scot.htm
Shavers, F. L. (2000). Academic ranks and titles of full-time nontenure-track faculty. In
C. A. Trower (Ed.), Policies on faculty appointment: standard practices and
unusual arrangements (pp. 110-140). Bolton, MA: Anker.
Spillane, J. P. (2005). Distributed leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 143-150.
doi:10.1080/00131720508984678
Thedwall, K. (2008). Nontenure-track faculty: Rising numbers, lost opportunities. New
Directions for Higher Education, 143, 11-19. doi:10.1002/he.308

185
Tierney, W. G., & Minor, J. T. (2003). Challenges for governance: A national report.
Los Angeles: Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis, Rossier School of
Education, University of Southern California.
Tierney, W. G., & Minor, J. T. (2004). A cultural perspective on communication and
governance. New Directions for Higher Education, 127, 85-94.
Trakman, L. (2008). Modeling university governance. Higher Education Quarterly,
62(1/2), 63-83. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2273.2008.00384.x
Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001). Collaboration and the need for trust. Journal of
Educational Administration, 39(4), 308-331. doi:10.1108/EUM0000000005493
Wrightsman, L. S. (1974). Assumptions about human nature: A social psychological
approach. Monterrey, CA: Brooks Cole.
Zand, D. E. (1971). Trust and managerial problem solving. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 17(2), 229-239.

186
APPENDIX A: REFERRAL REQUEST EMAIL
Dear [Name],

Hello! My name is Annette Pijuan and I am a doctoral student at the University of
Southern California in the Rossier School of Education. I am conducting my dissertation
research study at your organization and am contacting you for assistance in identifying
potential participants. I was advised that you are well positioned to assist me. If you
know of someone else who might also be in a position to assist me, please feel free to
nominate him or her.

The purpose of my study is to analyze the inclusion of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty,
in School-level governance and decision-making. My study addresses the following two
research questions: “What are the perceptions of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty of
their participation in School-level decision-making?” and “How do all stakeholders in a
School perceive the participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in School level
decision-making affects organizational dynamics?”

I request your assistance in identifying individuals with experience in School-level
decision-making. I am very interested in connecting with people who have experience in
and can provide multiple and meaningful perspectives on the process. Ideally, a few
individuals would have experience in the process before and after the inclusion of full-
time, non-tenure-track faculty.

I would like to connect with people in leadership as well as tenured, tenure-track, and
full-time, non-tenure-track faculty positions. I would appreciate referrals from the
School of Education and Psychology. Referrals should include between three and four
institutional leaders, either a Dean or Department Chair, and approximately five to seven
faculty members from each of the following faculty appointment types: tenured, tenure-
track, and full-time, non-tenure track. Your referrals represent an important contribution
to this study and I thank you in advance for your time and support.

To recommend leaders, tenured, tenure-track, and full-time, non-tenure-track faculty for
potential participation in my study, please reply to this email and provide their name. If
you have questions about the project, please contact me at ampijuan@usc.edu.

Thank you again for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Annette Pijuan
Doctoral Candidate
USC Rossier School of Education

187
APPENDIX B: SOLICITATION OF PARTICIPANTS
Dear [Name of Referral],

Hello! My name is Annette Pijuan and I am a doctoral student at the University of
Southern California in the Rossier School of Education. I would like to invite you to
participate in my dissertation research study focused on the inclusion of full-time, non-
tenure-track faculty in School-level governance and decision-making.

As an individual working at Loyola Marymount University, a private, Jesuit institution,
much like your organization, I have noticed that full-time, non-tenure-track faculty are
traditionally not included and do not participate in School-level governance and decision-
making. In looking at the literature regarding this phenomenon, not only did I find that
there is little research on the topic, but the information that is available identifies varying
views. This study is important to me because my institution is looking to better support
faculty and shares an interest in including full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in
governance. The specific intent of my study is to develop an understanding of the
experiences and perceptions of various stakeholders concerning the participation of full-
time, non-tenure-track faculty in decision-making as well as the potential influence their
participation could have on organizational dynamics. These various stakeholders include
administrators, tenured, tenure-track, and full-time, non-tenure-track faculty.

You have been selected to participate in this study based on your experience and/or your
nomination by [Name of Department contact], who recently identified you as an
individual with experience in School-level governance and decision-making within the
organization. It would be an honor if you would participate. Many institutions do not
engage in inclusive governance processes. I would like to share the experiences and
perceptions of individuals who have participated in and learned from an inclusive
governance and decision-making process. I am confident that your personal insights will
be invaluable. By taking the time to share your experiences and perceptions, you will
help me develop an understanding of the governance and decision-making process as
well as share your knowledge and perspective with other higher education faculty, staff,
and administrators who also wish to bring about change on their campuses.

If you agree to participate, you will be asked to schedule a one-on-one interview that will
last approximately one hour. Data will remain confidential. The interview will be audio-
taped with your permission. The interview questions aim to address your perception and
experience in governance and decision-making as well as how you perceive it affects the
organization. If you would prefer to see the questions prior to the interview, I will send
them to you ahead of time. Participation in the study is completely voluntary and you
may withdraw from the study at any point.

188
If you would like to volunteer to participate in this study, please review the attached
information sheet and reply with your confirmation on or before [Insert Date]. If you
have any questions or concerns, please contact me at ampijuan@usc.edu.

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Annette Pijuan
Doctoral Candidate
USC Rossier School of Education

189
APPENDIX C: INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR NON-MEDICAL
RESEARCH

University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089

The Inclusion of Full-Time, Non-Tenure-Track Faculty in School Level Decision-
Making

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

You are invited to participate in a research study on the inclusion of full-time, non-
tenure-track faculty in School level governance and decision-making. The specific intent
of the study is to develop an understanding of various stakeholder perceptions on the
participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in School level decision-making as
well as the potential influence their participation could have on organizational dynamics.

Participation is voluntary. Your relationship with your employer will not be affected,
whether or not you participate in this study.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT

If you agree to participate, you will be asked to share your experience and considerations
in an audio taped interview. The interview will be conducted at a time and place
convenient to you and the researcher and is anticipated to last approximately an hour. If
you decline to be audio taped, you cannot participate in this study.

CONFIDENTIALITY

All information collected for this study will remain confidential and will be disclosed
only with your permission or as required by law.

The audio tapes will be transcribed and coded with a pseudonym. The tapes and data will
be stored on a password protected computer for three years after the study has been
completed and then destroyed.

The members of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human
Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and
monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.

190

INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION

Principal Investigator: Annette Pijuan via email ampijuan@gmail.com or phone (310)
338-3769
Faculty Advisor: Dr. Kezar via email kezar@usc.edu or phone: (213) 821-1519

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION

University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for Research Advancement, Stonier
Hall, Room 224a, Los Angeles, CA 90089-1146, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

191
APPENDIX D: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FOR PARTICIPANT INTERVIEWS -
LEADERS

My name is Annette Pijuan and I am a doctoral candidate in the USC, Rossier School of
Education. Thank you for meeting with me. As you know, I also work at a private
institution and have noticed that FTNTTF is not included and does not participate in
governance and decision-making. In looking at the literature regarding this phenomenon,
not only did I find that there is little research on the topic, but the information that is
available identifies varying views. For these reasons, I am conducting research on the
participation of FTNTTF in governance and decision-making. I am here at this
organization, because it involves FTNTTF in governance and decision-making. As a
member of [Department Name] and someone who can provide a meaningful perspective,
I would like to speak with you to discuss your perceptions about FTNTTFs involvement.

I will be asking you questions in two areas. First, we will discuss how inclusion of
FTNTTF came about within the organization. Second, we will discuss your perception as
to how their inclusion affects the organization. Your contribution will be gathered in my
research to broaden the understanding of FTNTTF’s participation in governance and
decision-making as well as how their participation affects organizational dynamics.

Inclusion of FTNTTF

1. Traditional governance practices exclude the participation of FTNTTF. Explain how
FTNTTF came to be included in governance and decision-making at this
organization.
a. When were they first included?
b. Why did the organization start including them in decision-making?

2. Explain how FTNTTF are involved in governance and decision-making.
a. What types of decisions do FTNTTF participate in? Not participate in?
b. How is participation of FTNTTF in these types of decisions determined?
c. What decision-making groups can they participate in? Not participate in?

3. How has decision-making changed since you have included FTNTTF?
a. What challenges have you encountered?
b. How has the process evolved?
c. How has faculty (T, TT, FTNTT) responded to inclusion?
d. Are there individuals opposed to inclusion? If yes, why?

Inclusion of FTNTTF and Organizational Dynamics

4. Describe how the inclusion of FTNTTF affects the capacity for decision-making
within the [Department Name].
a. What are the benefits/advantages?

192
b. What are disadvantages?

5. Describe how you perceive the inclusion of FTNTTF in decision-making affects the
[Department Name]?
a. How has it affected the level of respect within the SOE?
• Trust?
• Communication?
• Collaboration?
• Participation?
• Motivation?
• Institutional commitment?
• Morale?

6. Is there something I have not asked you that would help me better understand your
experience?

193
APPENDIX E: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FOR PARTICIPANT INTERVIEWS –
TENURED AND TENURE-TRACK FACULTY

My name is Annette Pijuan and I am a doctoral candidate in the USC, Rossier School of
Education. Thank you for meeting with me. As you know, I also work at a private
institution and have noticed that FTNTTF is not included and does not participate in
governance and decision-making. In looking at the literature regarding this phenomenon,
not only did I find that there is little research on the topic, but the information that is
available identifies varying views. For these reasons, I am conducting research on the
participation of FTNTTF in School-level governance and decision-making. I am here at
this organization because it involves FTNTTF in governance and decision-making. As a
member of the [Department Name] and someone who can provide a meaningful
perspective, I would like to speak with you and discuss your perceptions about FTNTTFs
involvement.

I will be asking you questions in three areas. First, we will discuss your experience in
governance and decision-making. Second, we will discuss how the inclusion of FTNTTF
in decision-making has influenced your experience as a faculty member. Third, we will
discuss your perception as to how their inclusion affects the organization. Your
contribution will be gathered in my research to broaden the understanding of FTNTTF’s
participation in governance and decision-making as well as how their participation affects
organizational dynamics.

Participation in Decision-Making

1. Tell me about the governance and decision-making process at this organization. How
has it changed over the years?
a. Describe the extent to which faculty participate in decision-making.

2. Describe your involvement in governance and decision-making within the
[Department Name].
a. Describe your level of participation in decision-making.
b. What types of decisions do you participate in? Not participate in?
c. What Committees/Advisory Boards/Task Forces do you serve on?
i. Given your involvement on [name of Committee], can you
describe how it has evolved since the inclusion of FTNTTF?

3. How do you perceive that your participation in decision-making contributes to the
decision-making process?

4. How has participation in governance and decision-making influenced your experience
as a faculty member, now that FTNTTF are included?
a. Do you agree/disagree with their participation? Why/why not?
b. What types of decisions do FTNTTF participate in? Not participate in?

194
c. How is participation of FTNTTF in these types of decisions determined?

Inclusion of FTTNTF and Organizational Dynamics

5. Describe how the inclusion of FTNTTF affects decision-making within the
[Department Name]?
a. What are the benefits/advantages?
b. What are disadvantages?

6. Describe how you perceive the inclusion of FTNTTF in decision-making affects the
[Department Name]?
a. How has it affected the level of respect within the [Department Name]?
• Trust?
• Communication?
• Collaboration?
• Participation?
• Motivation?
• Institutional commitment?
• Morale?

7. Is there something I have not asked you that would help me better understand your
experience?

195
APPENDIX F: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FOR PARTICIPANT INTERVIEWS –
FULL-TIME, NON-TENURE-TRACK FACULTY

My name is Annette Pijuan and I am a doctoral candidate in the USC, Rossier School of
Education. Thank you for meeting with me. As you know, I also work at a private
institution and have noticed that FTNTTF is not included and does not participate in
governance and decision-making. In looking at the literature regarding this phenomenon,
not only did I find that there is little research on the topic, but the information that is
available identifies varying views. For these reasons, I am conducting research on the
participation of FTNTTF in School-level governance and decision-making. I am here at
this organization, because it involves FTNTTF in governance and decision-making. As a
member of the [Department Name] and someone who can provide a meaningful
perspective, I would like to speak with you and discuss your perceptions about FTNTTFs
involvement.

I will be asking you questions in three areas. First, we will discuss your experience in
governance and decision-making. Second, we will discuss how your participation in
decision-making has influenced your experience as a faculty member. Third, we will
discuss your perception as to how your inclusion affects the organization. Your
contribution will be gathered in my research to broaden the understanding of FTNTTF’s
participation in governance and decision-making as well as how their participation affects
organizational dynamics.

Participation in Decision-Making

1. Tell me about the governance and decision-making process within the organization.
Your School/College?
a. Describe the extent to which faculty participate in decision-making.

2. Describe your involvement in governance and decision-making as a FTNTTF within
the organization.
a. Describe your level of participation in decision-making.
b. What types of decisions do you participate in? Not participate in?
c. What Committees/Advisory Boards/Task Forces are you eligible to
participate in?
i. Of these groups, which ones do you participate in?

3. What influences your choice to participate? When have you chosen not to
participate?
a. How has administration/faculty affected your decision to participation?

4. How do you perceive that your participation in decision-making contributes to the
decision-making process?

196
a. What do you perceive is your role and official capacity in decision-
making?
b. What decisions do you feel you have influenced?

5. How has participation in governance and decision-making influenced your experience
as a faculty member? In what ways?
a. Do you feel your voice is heard and you are listened to within the
[Department Name]? Among your colleagues? Within the organization?

6. There may be times in which you have a differing view and/or oppose the proposed
decision being made. Describe the degree to which you would voice your position.
Please share a couple of examples or stories.
a. How do you feel about going against a popular opinion?
b. What would keep you from voicing your opinion?
c. What factors support your voicing your opinion?

Inclusion of FTNTTF and Organizational Dynamics

7. Describe how the inclusion of FTNTTF affects decision-making within the
[Department Name]?
c. What are the benefits/advantages?
d. What are disadvantages?

8. Describe how you perceive the inclusion of FTNTTF in decision-making affects the
[Department Name]?
a. How has it affected the level of respect within the [Department Name]?
• Trust?
• Communication?
• Collaboration?
• Participation?
• Motivation?
• Institutional commitment?
• Morale?

9. Is there something I have not asked you that would help me better understand your
experience?

197
APPENDIX G: DOCUMENT ANALYSIS FORM
Type of Document

____ Handbook ____ Memorandum ____ Telegram

____ Letter ____ Newspaper ____ Meeting minutes

____ Report ____ Press release ____ Other

Unique Physical Qualities of the Document (Mark all that apply)

____ Typed ____ Notations ____ Interesting letterhead

____ Handwritten ____ Online ____ Other

Date(s) of Document

Audience Document Written For

Document Information
1. What is the purpose of the document?

2. What is important about this document to the study? (e.g. establishing context,
giving background, provide support)

3. How does this document relate to other documents or other data?

4. Does this document affirm or contradict other data, or within the document itself?

5. How does this document help answer the research question(s)?

6. What is the tone of the document? Are there any implicit messages?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this qualitative study was to develop an understanding of the perceptions of various stakeholders regarding the inclusion and participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in shared governance and decision-making. This study aimed to understand the experiences and perceptions of full-time non-tenure-track faculty and their participation in decision-making. In addition, the study also sought to identify how various stakeholders perceive the participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty influences organizational dynamics. ❧ This case study explored a private, medium-sized, comprehensive institution where full-time, non-tenure-track faculty participates in governance and decision-making at the institutional, academic, and departmental level. The modified governance practices of the institution were examined to develop an understanding of how inclusion and participation of this faculty group might influence the capacity for decision-making as well as influence organizational dynamics. Although governance and decision-making occur across various levels of the institution, the focus for this study was at the academic college and departmental level. ❧ In this case study, data was collected through document analysis and semi-structured participant interviews. Findings from this study indicate that the participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in governance and decision-making influence various stakeholders, their department, and their academic unit, as well as on the institution. It also became evident that elements that promote the participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in governance and decision-making, such as leadership, development of shared responsibility and values, and generation of multiple and diverse perspectives, were strengthened within the participatory decision-making process. Taken together, these elements can lead to strategic actions that an institution, its administrators, and its faculty could take to improve their academic working environments, enhance meaningfulness and commitment for faculty, and strengthen institutional excellence. ❧ This study is significant in that it recognizes full-time, non-tenure-track faculty as a distinct group within institutions of higher education. It provides a contribution to the scarcity of literature available regarding the participation of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty in the shared governance and decision-making process and the influence that participation could have on the institution, its individual members, and the overall academic community. As this is a growing faculty group within institutions of higher education, it was important to understand ways in which they could further contribute to an institution as well as how their contribution and participation affects the organization.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Developing effective mentoring programs for non-tenure track faculty

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Mission dissemination: a multi-case study of the research university mission

PDF

Syllabus review equity-oriented tool as a means of self-change among STEM faculty

PDF

Assessment and teaching improvement in higher education: investigating an unproven link

PDF

Part-time faculty and their sense of belonging

PDF

Faculty learning in career and technical education: a case study of designing and implementing peer observation

PDF

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

PDF

Recruiting faculty abroad: examining factors that induced American faculty to work at branch campuses in Qatar's Education City

Asset Metadata

Creator Pijuan, Annette Marie (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 05/30/2012

Defense Date 05/01/2012

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

Tag Decision making,full-time non-tenure-track faculty,ghovernance,Higher education,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Kezar, Adrianna J. (committee chair), Bensimon, Estela Mara (committee member), Oliver, Irene (committee member)

Creator Email ampijuan@usc.edu,apijuan59@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-43980

Unique identifier UC11289137

Identifier usctheses-c3-43980 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-PijuanAnne-868.pdf

Dmrecord 43980

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Pijuan, Annette Marie

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