University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Experience of belonging for full-time hybrid physical therapy faculty

(USC Thesis Other)

Experience of belonging for full-time hybrid physical therapy faculty

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Experience of Belonging for Full-Time, Hybrid Physical Therapy Faculty
By
Elizabeth Audrey Ruckert
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
May 2024

© Copyright by Elizabeth Audrey Ruckert, 2024
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Elizabeth Audrey Ruckert certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Courtney Lynn Malloy
Marcus Pritchard
Jennifer Phillips
Kathy Stowe, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024

iv
Abstract
Little is known about the experience of belonging for full-time, hybrid physical therapy faculty
in the United States. Rapid growth of Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) education programs
with hybrid curricular models and national physical therapy faculty shortages suggest the
importance of exploring faculty belonging, especially given the relationship between belonging
and job performance, retention, and satisfaction. The purpose of this study was to understand the
experience of belonging for hybrid physical therapy faculty, as well as the supports and barriers
for sense of belonging within the faculty’s immediate and distal environments. Bronfenbrenner’s
ecological systems framework anchored the study. Using purposeful sampling, 15 faculty
employed full-time in accredited or candidate for accreditation physical therapy programs with
hybrid curricular models participated in semi-structured, virtual interviews. Responses were
transcribed, coded, and analyzed using NVivo software. Methods to enhance credibility and
trustworthiness included engagement with the data, member checks, an audit trail, and researcher
reflexivity. Study findings suggest that hybrid physical therapy faculty experience belonging as
deep human connection with colleagues that develops and changes over time. Hybrid faculty
exert considerable effort to develop meaningful connections on-campus and remotely through
formal and informal activities and technology. Supports and barriers to belonging emerged as
personal, interpersonal, and organizational factors. Personal characteristics influencing belonging
in positive and negative ways included values and priorities, communication strategies, and
personality characteristics. Interpersonal relationships with program directors, faculty peers, and
students supported or interfered with belonging depending on the presence of collegiality and
accessibility. Factors related to the culture and structure of the DPT department and broader
university also influenced belonging in helpful and detrimental ways. Study findings ground four

v
recommendations for faculty members, program directors, and university leaders to enhance the
full-time, hybrid physical therapy faculty member’s belonging experience in DPT education.
Keywords: belonging, hybrid, faculty, physical therapy, collegiality

vi
Dedication
To my parents and my sister, Jess, who have supported every academic goal and aspiration
through the peaks and the valleys as my biggest cheerleaders.
To my grandparents, who instilled their love of learning and value of education through the
generations to me.
And to Neal, who truly shows every day that marriage is not about keeping score; it is a
partnership with give and take. Nonetheless, for this one I owe you big time!

vii
Acknowledgements
Earning a terminal academic degree has been a hope and dream of mine for over 10
years. Although I consider myself a physical therapist first, academia is my true professional
calling. This degree has taught me equally about what it means to be a scholar and leader as well
as about myself as a person. There were many days where I doubted myself. I constantly
weighed what I was missing with my family with what I was gaining from being in this program.
In the end, I see the fruits of over 3 years of sacrifices: EdD. Three letters that represent my love
of learning, commitment to leadership, and dedication to excellence. Today, I see a new,
different version of myself−improved in some ways, hardened in others−who is ready for new
opportunities and challenges… and a vacation.
There are many people to acknowledge for helping me cross the finish line. First, my
committee. Dr. Stowe, you saw my potential from day one and never stopped pushing me to
think deeper about this important topic. You provided inspiration, care, and honesty to help me
become the storyteller of these participants’ experiences in a meaningful and powerful way.
Your expertise and commitment to students is exceptional, and I am so grateful to have been one
of them. Dr. Phillips, your teaching and mentorship have been a highlight of the OCL program
for me. Thank you for advancing my knowledge about leadership and diversity, and for setting
high standards in your careful review of my work. Dr. Malloy, so much of what I know about
research methods is thanks to you and your incredible depth of experience. Thank you for your
invaluable insights and feedback. Dr. Pritchard, your generosity of mentorship and time is
unparalleled. Your energy, humor, and approachability will stick with me moving forward in
how I mentor future students. Thank you hardly seems enough to express my gratitude to this
outstanding committee.

viii
I am indebted to each of the study participants who generously gave their time and shared
their experiences. Their thoughtful reflection, candid honesty, and commitment to advancing the
profession through research was admirable and humbling. I am grateful for your trust in sharing
your stories and hope for future collaborations with you through our amazing profession.
I am grateful for the outstanding female faculty role models who inspired me to pursue
this degree. Over the years, they have modeled what it means to be an academic by talking the
talk and walking the walk. These women openly shared their journeys, including successes,
regrets, and their life’s work, to help me forge my own path in academia. These women believed
in me, built my confidence, invited me as an equal collaborator, helped me set ambitious goals,
sponsored amazing professional opportunities, and pushed my career forward from my first days
as assistant professor at George Washington University to today. I am truly indebted to Margaret
Plack, Susan Ryerson, Barbara Bregman, Nina Bradley, Ellen Costello, Rhea Cohn, Jennifer
Halvaksz, Ellen Goldman, Joyce Maring, Sue Leach, and Beth Fisher. Our collaborations over
the years have brought both intellectual challenge and warm friendship.
They say, “It takes a village,” and I was prepared to lean on family to help me get
through. I was completely unprepared, however, for the extent of support and encouragement I
received from friends, neighbors, coworkers, and acquaintances to keep me afloat during the
reality of pursuing this degree with a newborn and 3-year-old. There was an army of women
(many of whom were fellow moms) who never judged me for taking on an arduous degree
program that took time away from my husband and kids, but instead constantly reminded me that
I was a worthy mother and the degree was well worth it. They checked in, showed up, cooked
meals, took the kids for playdates, offered their kids as mother’s helpers, minimized schedule
conflicts, sent reminders about deadlines, celebrated milestones, and most of all kept me

ix
believing in myself. Thank you, Kristin, Patty, Jennifer, Lindsey, Meaghan, Lauren, Lisa, Kate,
Courtney, Allison, Jeanne, Audra, Shawn, and Beryl.
To my amazing co-workers who accepted my frazzled and frantic state for 3.5 years:
thank you for being patient, pitching in, offering advice, and helping me do right by our students
and faculty while also pursuing this degree. You listened to my goals, supported my vision, and
cheered on my progress with each semester. I appreciate you, Jim, Julie, Didi, Libby, Erin,
Darlene, Clarisa, Danielle, Robbin, Lori, Janet, Mike, Monica, Jessica, Lauren, Carly, Kristan,
Kate, and many others.
Cohort 20, you were inspirational along this journey. You taught me about what it means
to be part of a true community of learners. I am so proud of the work we have accomplished
individually and together and am excited to see our new knowledge disseminated to the world!
Specifically, thank you to Angie, my study buddy and number one go-to for all things big and
small about the program and life over the past three years. Thank you to my dissertation group,
Kavita, Jennifer, Tamara, Sunnary and Deepa, who were instant confidants that provided sanity,
advice, and inspiration to continue onward. And thank you to my original cohort mates in cohort
17, especially Lauren, Matt, and Amy, who helped me realize that collaboration and friendship
were the only way to get through this program.
There are hardly words to rightfully acknowledge my family for their sacrifices and
support. My husband, my parents, my in-laws, and my sister and brother-in-law have truly been
my lifeline. There was never a “no” when I needed to find extra time to work- instead, it was an
immediate rally of resources to get it done. You took such care of Logan and Arianna (and
Neal!) so that I could move this forward without as much guilt. You met my stress and
exasperation with understanding, empathy, and encouragement. You listened to me vent, hugged

x
me when I cried, and let the little things roll off your back in order to keep me focused and
moving forward. You were with me every step of the way, even carried me at times. From the
bottom of my heart, thank you. There is no way I could have accomplished this without you.
Finally, Neal, you are an amazing life partner. How did I get so lucky? Thank you for
helping me see this through, no matter how hard the days were and how long the nights were. I
am so excited to enjoy more moments with you and our little family. Here’s to our next
adventures! I love you.

xi
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ...................................................................................................................................... vi
Acknowledgements....................................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables ...............................................................................................................................xiii
List of Figures.............................................................................................................................. xiv
List of Abbreviations .................................................................................................................... xv
Chapter One: Overview of the Study.............................................................................................. 1
Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 1
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions.................................................................. 4
Importance of the Study...................................................................................................... 4
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .................................................... 5
Definitions........................................................................................................................... 6
Organization of the Dissertation ......................................................................................... 8
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 10
Online Learning in Higher Education............................................................................... 10
Motivators and Demotivators of Online Faculty Work .................................................... 17
Remote Faculty Sense of Belonging................................................................................. 23
Best Practices to Support Remote Faculty Belonging ...................................................... 31
Barriers to Hybrid Physical Therapy Faculty Belonging.................................................. 37
Conceptual Framework..................................................................................................... 40
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 44
Chapter Three: Methodology........................................................................................................ 45
Research Questions........................................................................................................... 45
Overview of Design .......................................................................................................... 45

xii
The Researcher.................................................................................................................. 46
Data Source: Interviews.................................................................................................... 47
Data Analysis.................................................................................................................... 50
Credibility and Trustworthiness........................................................................................ 51
Ethics................................................................................................................................. 52
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 54
Participants........................................................................................................................ 54
Findings for Research Question 1..................................................................................... 58
Findings for Research Question 2..................................................................................... 73
Summary ......................................................................................................................... 102
Chapter Five: Discussion ............................................................................................................ 104
Discussion of Findings.................................................................................................... 104
Researcher’s Reflection .................................................................................................. 110
Recommendations for Practice ....................................................................................... 111
Limitations and Delimitations......................................................................................... 118
Recommendations for Future Research .......................................................................... 120
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 120
References................................................................................................................................... 123
Appendix A: Interview Protocol................................................................................................. 147

xiii
List of Tables
Table 1: Data Sources ................................................................................................................. 46
Table 2: Participant Overview..................................................................................................... 56
Table 3: Themes for Research Question 1: The Experience of Belonging ................................. 59
Table 4: Themes for Research Question 2: Supports and Barriers of Sense of Belonging......... 74

xiv
List of Figures
Figure 1: Essential Elements of Faculty Work Supporting Belonging ........................................ 27
Figure 2: Conceptual Framework for Hybrid Physical Therapy Faculty Sense of Belonging .... 43
Figure 3: Revised Conceptual Framework ................................................................................ 105

xv
List of Abbreviations
ACAPT American Council of Academic Physical Therapy
CAPTE Commission on Accreditation of Physical Therapy Education
DPT Doctor of Physical Therapy
ERT Emergency Remote Teaching

1
Chapter One: Overview of the Study
Remote faculty in higher education experience diminished sense of belonging (Butters &
Gann, 2022; Maier, 2012; Terosky & Heasley, 2016; Toner et al., 2021). Belonging, or the
feeling of being recognized, connected, supported, and included in one’s work environment
(Coqual, 2020), is an integral component of faculty work (Gappa et al., 2007; Haviland et al.,
2020). Moreso, American psychologist Abraham Maslow postulated that belonging is the third
most fundamental human need for survival after physiological needs, such as water and air, and
safety needs, such as shelter and resources (Maslow, 1943). At an organizational level, high
feelings of belonging relate to improved job performance, lower turnover risk, increased
organizational loyalty, and less career stall (BetterUp, 2021; Carr et al., 2019; Coqual, 2020). At
a personal level, higher feelings of belonging are related to greater happiness and personal wellbeing (Bruce et al., 2019). Yet research demonstrates that remote faculty experience isolation
and lack of social connectedness within their institutions (Butters & Gann, 2022; Maier, 2012;
Terosky & Heasley, 2016; Toner et al., 2021); only 35% of remote faculty feel adequately
connected to other online faculty (Maier, 2012). Although existing literature demonstrates that
belonging is a problem for remote faculty, there is currently no literature exploring the
experience of belonging among hybrid physical therapy faculty.
Background of the Problem
Changes in the national landscape of physical therapy educational programs highlight the
need for faculty belonging and connection for retention (American Council of Academic
Physical Therapy [ACAPT], 2021; Deusinger & Landers, 2022; Commission on Accreditation
for Physical Therapy Education [CAPTE], 2021). Across 261 accredited Doctor of Physical
Therapy (DPT) programs in the United States, there is a shortage of one to two faculty positions

2
per program on average (ACAPT, 2024; CAPTE, 2021). More than 15 new DPT programs in
development since 2019, many of them hybrid in design, further compounds the problem (E.
Robertson, personal communication, July 1, 2022); approximately 165 new faculty are needed to
fulfill teaching and scholarly requirements for these new programs (CAPTE, 2021). Hybrid
curricular delivery models typically involve hiring hybrid faculty, many of whom live
geographically separated from the department. In physical therapy education, these faculty teach
didactic content online from an off-campus work location, but also teach face-to-face on campus
during immersion laboratories that occur at select times throughout the curriculum (Gagnon et
al., 2022). Remote faculty report challenges to building community with other faculty and with
students, including feeling separate, isolated, and with limited communication opportunities
(Haviland et al., 2020; Schwartz et al., 2018; Toner et al., 2021). The nature of hybrid faculty
appointment types and work roles bring additional challenges to belonging aside from
geographic distance.
The roles and responsibilities inherent in faculty appointments for non-tenure track and
adjunct faculty further exacerbates the diminished sense of belonging among remote faculty. In
physical therapy education programs, non-tenure track and adjunct faculty appointments are
prevalent: non-tenure track positions are 51% of full-time contracts and adjunct appointments
comprise 50% of all faculty positions across both full-time and part-time statuses (CAPTE,
2021). Compared to tenure track faculty, non-tenure track and adjunct faculty are attractive for
hiring due to more flexible or short-term contracts, lower salaries, and limited to no benefit
provisions (House Committee on Education, 2014; Kezar, 2012). In addition, remote positions
cost employers, on average, $10,000 less per year (Owl Labs and Global Workforce Analytics,
2021). Thus, the terms of remote non-tenure track and adjunct positions set up faculty to be

3
viewed as different from other faculty in the department (Gappa et al., 2007; Haviland et al.,
2017; Kezar, 2012). Faculty in geographically separated positions experience role ambiguity,
diminished access to information, limited voice and voting rights in governance, and social
exclusion on the job (Gappa et al., 2007; Haviland et al., 2017; Kezar, 2012). With the
challenges of belonging that specific faculty appointments create, academic institutions have
developed initiatives to enhance community-building.
Faculty characteristics, along with aspects of the immediate work environment and
broader academic environment, each impact sense of belonging. Remote faculty interact within
an immediate environment of department leaders, faculty peers, and students. The personal
factors remote faculty bring to these relationships can contribute to isolation, including
technology skills, online teaching skills, ability to connect and communicate with co-workers,
and personal experience and perceptions of online learning (Butters & Gann, 2022; Garvin,
2022; Jaschik & Lederman, 2019; Terosky & Healey, 2015). Remote faculty also identify
organizational contributors to loneliness and isolation, such as lack of collegiality, limited
feedback and recognition, manager relationships, and work culture (Buffer, 2022; Carr et al.,
2019; Coqual, 2020; Garvin, 2022; Mansbach & Austin, 2018; Toner et al., 2021). Broader
academic environmental perceptions surrounding quality of online learning and nature of remote
faculty appointments also influence online faculty belonging (Legon & Garrett, 2016; Jaschik &
Lederman, 2019; Toner et al., 2021). Approaches to improve workplace belonging have involved
faculty development workshops, mentoring programs, faculty learning communities, as well as
departmental technology-related resources and culture initiatives, such as communication
practices, evaluation, and recognition opportunities (Luongo & O’Brien, 2018; Maier, 2012;
Schwartz et al., 2018; Terosky & Heasley, 2015; Toner et al., 2021). Little literature exists

4
related to the long-term outcomes and efficacy of these initiatives and recommendations to
improve belonging. Despite identified micro- and macro-environmental factors that contribute to
remote faculty belonging, there is no current literature regarding factors that impact hybrid
physical therapy faculty belonging.
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to understand the experience of belonging among full-time,
hybrid physical therapy faculty. The nature of DPT curricula is such that fully remote (e.g.,
100% online) faculty positions are rare; most DPT coursework requires that students demonstrate
knowledge and psychomotor skill competencies, necessitating face-to-face laboratory instruction
and assessment by faculty. Thus, this study explored the sense of belonging among full-time
hybrid faculty who complete the majority of their faculty workload at a distance but engage in
face-to-face interactions during immersions or intermittent on-site work responsibilities. The
following research questions anchored the purpose:
1. What is the experience of belonging for full-time hybrid physical therapy faculty?
2. What are the supports and barriers of belonging for full-time hybrid physical therapy
faculty?
Importance of the Study
The consequences of diminished remote faculty sense of belonging extend from the
individual to organizational and societal levels. For remote faculty, loneliness and isolation are
harmful to health and well-being (Walton & Brady, 2017). Prolonged isolation equates to the
cardiovascular health damages of smoking for 15 years; early cognitive decline, functional
limitations, and mortality are also effects of loneliness (Burke, 2009; Holt-Lunstad et al, 2015;
Ong et al., 2016). For students, an instructor’s diminished sense of community is associated with

5
poorer outcomes, including higher failure and withdrawal rates along with lower end-of-course
satisfaction rates (Mueller et al., 2013). For administrators and organizations, belonging has a
business case: higher belonging equates to 56% increase in job performance over those with
lower belonging (BetterUp, 2021) and is the second most important driver of workplace culture
(Glint, 2021). The dramatic shift to remote and hybrid job structures across industries in the
United States as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic highlights the immediate relevance for
understanding belonging to best meet employee needs. Finally, workplace belonging relates to
the current mental health crisis in the United States (The White House, 2022). With 21% of
American adults experiencing mental illness (Mental Health America, 2022), including anxiety
and depression, exploring and addressing the workplace loneliness and isolation experienced by
nearly one in four remote workers is critical (Buffer, 2021). Thus, understanding the experience
of belonging among hybrid physical therapy faculty has far-reaching importance from personal
to societal domains.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
Ecological systems theory is a theoretical framework suitable for exploring the faculty
experience of sense of belonging. Developed by Urie Bronfenbrenner, the framework
emphasizes the interaction between a person and the multiple environments and systems
encompassing the person (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). Historical developmental theories focus on the
role of the immediate environment within which a person interacts most regularly on the
person’s development (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). In contrast, ecological systems theory highlights
the influence of environments both immediate (e.g., microsystem) and broad (e.g., exosystem
and macrosystem) on an individual’s development (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). Given that the
perception of belonging is based on a person’s feeling of fit within their environment (Walton &

6
Brady, 2017), Bronfenbrenner’s theory provides structure for analyzing the influence of multiple
interacting faculty environments on belonging (Allen et al., 2016). Relevant environments
include: the macrosystem of prevalent societal views about online learning, the expansion of
hybrid models for DPT program curricula, and the faculty appointment structure of academia;
the mesosystem of the DPT program and department policies and practices; and the microsystem
of interactions between the faculty member and their peers, students, and managers or program
directors (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). Thus, Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory provides an
important context for exploring faculty belonging.
Qualitative methodology was used to explore faculty sense of belonging within the
ecological systems framework. A field study of the physical therapy profession with a national
purposeful sample enabled investigation of factors across DPT programs that supported or
impeded belonging (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Participants were recruited from accredited and
candidate-for-accreditation DPT programs with hybrid curricula within the United States. Openended, semi-structured interviews supported a detailed description of the faculty experience of
belonging; participants shared their unique experiences, their interpretation of those experiences,
and the meaning they applied to the experiences (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Qualitative design
aligned directly with the research questions to understand full-time, hybrid physical therapy
faculty experiences of belonging.
Definitions
The following definitions provide clarity of terms used throughout the dissertation.
Belonging
Sense of belonging is a deep-rooted personal need to feel connected and valued through
meaningful interactions with others (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). At work, it means a feeling of

7
recognition, connection, support, and inclusion in one’s work environment (Coqual, 2020).
Belonging is environment-dependent and can change based on a person’s perceived fit with their
current environment (Walton & Brady, 2017).
Collegiality
Collegiality describes behaviors of an academic work culture that convey trust, respect,
care, concern, and inclusion. Gappa and colleagues (2007) consider it one of five essential
elements of faculty work environments.
Hybrid curricula
A hybrid curricular model is one mode of DPT curriculum delivery which includes both
online and face-to-face learning methods. The online component may occur in both synchronous
or asynchronous forms and replaces face-to-face seat time (Gagnon et al., 2020).
Hybrid physical therapy faculty
Hybrid physical therapy faculty appointments involve teaching in a DPT program’s
hybrid curricular model while living at a geographic distance from campus that limits on-site
teaching and face-to-face interactions with students to immersions or other campus events
(Gagnon et al., 2022). In this study, hybrid physical therapy faculty perform predominantly offcampus work.
Immersions
Within a hybrid curricular model, the face-to-face, in-person learning occurring
synchronously in one geographic location, typically for several days to a week at a time, is
referred to as an immersion in this study. In physical therapy curricula, this is when psychomotor
skill instruction, practice, and assessment occurs (Gagnon et al., 2020). Some physical therapy
programs may also refer to immersions as intensives or labs.

8
Online learning
A form of distance education in which the learner and teacher are geographically
separated yet communicate through use of the internet (Kentnor, 2015). This differs from hybrid
learning in which learners spend some time learning face-to-face and some time learning online.
Remote faculty
A faculty appointment in which completion of all job-related activities occurs at a
distance (Toner et al., 2021). There is no requirement for face-to-face interactions as part of the
position. Also commonly referred to as a distance faculty position.
Traditional or residential curricula
A traditional curricular model is the most common mode of physical therapy delivery in
the United States, wherein the delivery of a majority of coursework is through face-to-face, oncampus classroom instruction. Although some online or flipped instruction may occur, the
predominant mode of instruction is synchronous learning in one geographic location (Gagnon et
al., 2020).
University
The academic institution that employs hybrid physical therapy faculty. In this study, the
term university identifies any academic institution, regardless of having college or university in
its proper name, as a method of anonymity.
Organization of the Dissertation
Five chapters comprise this dissertation. Chapter One includes an introduction to the
problem of practice, along with an overview of the study’s purpose and significance as well as
definitions of relevant terminology. Chapter Two provides the literature review, theoretical
framework, and conceptual framework that ground the study. A visual representation of the

9
conceptual framework anchored in Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory is provided.
Chapter Three describes the qualitative methods utilized to achieve the study’s purpose,
including research questions, study design, data collection, and data analysis procedures.
Specific methods are discussed that maximize credibility and trustworthiness, as well as my
positionality as researcher given the qualitative design. Chapter Four provides discussion of the
study’s findings within the context of the study purpose and research questions. Finally, Chapter
Five concludes with a discussion of the findings, a revised conceptual framework, researcher’s
reflection, and the resulting recommendations for future practice and research within the field of
physical therapy and more broadly.

10
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This literature review examines the construct of belonging in the context of hybrid
physical therapy faculty in higher education. The first section explores macrosystem
environmental influences on hybrid physical therapy faculty, including a brief history of online
learning in higher education, its influence on individual and societal perceptions of online
learning quality and outcomes, and current trends in online learning in physical therapy
education. Next, faculty motivators and demotivators related to online teaching are described
along with the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on faculty online teaching experiences. A
discussion of the theory of belonging, how belonging relates to the essential elements of faculty
work, namely collegiality, and the role of collegiality with the microsystem of academic
departments follows. Then a review of best practices related to promoting belonging in the
academe are discussed along with challenges to implementation in the context of physical
therapy education. Finally, the conceptual framework of hybrid physical therapy faculty sense of
belonging is presented utilizing Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory.
Online Learning in Higher Education
The historical context of online learning in the United States provides a backdrop for
understanding belonging among hybrid physical therapy faculty. At a macrosystem level, early
successes and failures of online learning programs lead to questions about its efficacy and
quality. As a result, faculty engagement in online learning has been variable, despite growing
institutional adoption and student enrollment. The history that follows will start with the onset of
online learning in the 1990s.

11
History of Online Learning in Higher Education (1990s to 2019)
The advent of online learning brought great potential for expanding the reach of higher
education beyond all prior forms of distance education. Online learning is a form of distance
education in which the learner and teacher are geographically separated but connected through
technology (Kentnor, 2015; Moore et al., 2011). In the mid-1990s, advancements in video
technology and dial-up internet created new two-way communication abilities between instructor
and students in learning (Kentnor, 2015; Harting & Erthal, 2005; Sherron & Boettcher, 1997).
Online learning course offerings grew from 33% of post-secondary educational institutions in
1999 (Lewis et al., 1999) to 79% of institutions in 2018 (NCES Blog, 2021). Factors contributing
to growth included: more access for students who were non-traditional students (e.g., needed to
work, had family responsibilities, or lived in rural geographic areas) and a new revenue stream
for institutions at a time of mounting higher education costs (Baum & McPherson, 2019;
Kentnor, 2015). At the same time, relevant limiting factors for expanding distance education
offerings were incongruence between online learning and organizational goals and mission,
online program development costs, concerns about overall quality of online learning, and
diminished technology-related infrastructure (Waits et al., 2003). Institutions weighed these
advantages and barriers when deciding to adopt or defer online learning implementation (Baum
& McPherson, 2019; Kentnor, 2015; Waits et al., 2003). The end result was variable adoption
and success of online learning programs across higher education sectors.
The online learning movement gained momentum since the late 2000s yet prevalent
questions about instructional quality versus financial motivates occurred. In 2012, nearly 70% of
chief academic officers reported that online education was critical to their institution’s long-term
strategy, up from less than 50% in 2002 (Allen & Seaman, 2013). A majority of higher education

12
institutions offered some form of online education by the mid-2010s (Legon & Garrett, 2017;
Garrett et al., 2019). Despite emphasis on improving access for students, the financial incentives
behind this growth factored into student outcomes and overall program quality (Baum &
McPherson, 2019). Chief online officers’ resource allocation prioritized online enrollment
growth (49%−61% of administrators) more than online student completion (2%−23%) and
online instructional quality (7%−14%) (Legon & Garrett, 2017). Despite lack of physical space
and infrastructure costs for online courses, online tuition rates were typically the same or higher
than standard tuition, with additional online student fees and higher expected enrollments (Legon
& Garrett, 2017). Furthermore, quality assurance and feedback about program outcomes and
student performance lacked well developed methods (Legon & Garrett, 2017). Thus, despite its
prevalence and growth, concerns about quality remained for higher education stakeholders.
Perceptions of online learning as inferior compared to traditional face-to-face classroom
methods persist in the broad macro-environment of the United States. The proportion of chief
academic officers reporting that online learning outcomes were inferior to face-to-face
instruction was 43% in 2003 and still nearly 30% in 2015 (Allen & Seaman, 2013, 2016). The
perceptions of lower quality were even higher among academic leaders at institutions without
online course offerings (Allen & Seaman, 2013). Faculty also perceived online quality concerns;
nearly 70% described feeling neutral or disagreement with the value and legitimacy of online
education from 2003 to 2015 (Allen & Seaman, 2013, 2016) with only slight decrease to 62% in
2019 (Johnson et al., 2022). Again, perceived value by faculty was lowest at institutions without
online course offerings (Allen & Seaman, 2013). Even as recently as 2018, 39% percent of hiring
managers reported perceptions that online degrees are lower quality than degrees completed in
person, 45% questioned the rigor required for online coursework, and 14% reported that they

13
would never hire someone with an online degree (Gallagher et al., 2018). Furthermore,
employers identified concerns about limited interaction between online faculty and students,
along with limited development of communication skills, as part of the hesitancy with employing
graduates of online degrees (Baum & McPherson, 2019). Despite perceptions of inferior
outcomes as part of the narrative of online learning for faculty and administrators, more faculty
and students were participating in online learning than ever before.
Faculty and Student Engagement in Online Learning
Faculty use of technology in the online and blended learning classroom has mostly
increased over the past decade despite resistance to online teaching by some faculty. A
longitudinal study of faculty technology use from 2013-2019 showed that more faculty were
teaching online courses for credit up to 46% in 2019 from 30% in 2013 (Johnson et al., 2022). A
steady percentage of faculty (39%) taught blended or hybrid coursework over the 6 years
(Johnson et al., 2022). This follows trends in online course and programmatic growth as being
most concentrated in fully online coursework, as opposed to blended or hybrid (Garrett et al.,
2019). The most common online teaching and learning techniques reported by faculty involve
asynchronous delivery: threaded discussions (86%), preparatory readings (86%), short written
assignments (73%), and quizzes (66%) (Garrett et al., 2019). Synchronous activities are less
common; only 8-11% of respondents required or commonly utilized live video or audio (Garrett
et al., 2019). Only 14% of 280 higher education institutions surveyed reported balanced use of
synchronous and asynchronous methods (Garrett et al., 2019). This imbalance is particularly
relevant when considering how faculty and students develop the learning environment and class
relationships; doing so in an asynchronous environment has challenges (Smith, 2015).

14
Regardless of curricular model, students remain attracted to online learning environments across
undergraduate and graduate degrees.
Consistent increases in yearly student enrollment suggest continued student need and
interest in online learning modalities. Even as overall higher education enrollment numbers
declined in the 2010s, student enrollments across online undergraduate and graduate coursework
have increased between 9% to 23% annually from 2002-2011 (Allen & Seaman, 2013), 17%
from 2012-2016 (Seaman et al., 2018), and another 4%-6% from 2016-2017 (Garrett et al.,
2019). While early 2000s enrollment growth was largely concentrated in undergraduate
populations, later trends in late 2010s demonstrated the reverse: growth in online graduate
programs outpacing undergraduate (Garrett et al., 2020). In graduate programs, fully online
coursework demonstrated more enrollment growth than blended coursework (Garrett et al.,
2020); however, 40% of chief academic officers perceived that blended/hybrid course designs
show more future promise than fully online programs and 90% believed that blended/hybrid
designs have the same or superior outcomes compared to face-to-face instruction (Allen &
Seaman, 2016). Hybrid Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) programs began to emerge in this
landscape of expanding online graduate enrollment of the 2010s.
Emergence of Online Learning in Physical Therapy
Online learning is not new to physical therapy education, but its presence in entry-level
professional curriculum has changed substantially over the past decade. Online learning first
emerged in physical therapy education in online and hybrid formats to support physical therapist
post-baccalaureate education (King et al., 2006; Swisher et al., 2002). In the 1990s and early
2000s, the profession’s professional entry degree moved from a bachelor’s degree to a master’s
degree and then doctoral degree (Plack & Wong, 2002; Rothstein, 1998). Online education

15
provided a mechanism for transitional degrees that fostered advanced differential diagnosis and
clinical reasoning skills for practicing physical therapists (King et al., 2006; Swisher et al.,
2002). These post-bac online curricula did not emphasize psychomotor skill development, as
these skills were already part of the bachelor’s degree curriculum (Woods, 2001). Entry-level
physical therapy programs utilized traditional face-to-face instruction due, in part, to the
significant psychomotor skill development required. Early online education models in entry-level
curricula were at the course-level, not program level.
Course-level adoption of technology and online learning methods in physical therapy
classrooms created student learning outcomes that eventually lead to program-wide
implementation. As opposed to mandated technology use, most physical therapy faculty opted in
to using classroom technologies by choice and interest in stand-alone coursework (Gagnon et al.,
2020; Theile et al., 2014). Centered around enhancing or flipping instruction to promote more
active learning, faculty utilized technology in traditional face-to-face classes but did not replace
student seat time with online instruction (Boucher et al., 2013; Murray et al., 2015). Examples of
technology use to improve active-learning in the physical therapy classroom included computerassisted learning (Costello et al., 2017; Veneri et al., 2011), discussion boards and collaborative
documents (Del Bello-Haas et al., 2013; Macznik et al., 2015; Ruckert et al., 2014), websites
(Macznik et al., 2015; Preston et al., 2012), and videos (Del Bello-Haas et al., 2013; Maring et
al., 2008; Preston et al., 2012). Student learning outcomes were mostly favorable across the
blended technology models implemented, including increased cognitive knowledge,
development of clinical reasoning, and improved psychomotor skills which are all essential for
professional practice (Boucher et al., 2013; Costello et al., 2017; Lazinski, 2017; Preston et al,
2012; Ruckert et al., 2014; Veneri & Gannotti, 2014). The student outcomes from blended

16
curricula paved the way for program-wide technology implementation of hybrid curricular
models.
Hybrid curricular models are an effective means to leverage the benefits of online
learning while promoting the clinical reasoning, psychomotor skill development, and
professional competencies necessary for entry-level physical therapist practice. The first entrylevel hybrid DPT curricular models emerged in the early 2010s (Blackinton, 2013). In physical
therapy, hybrid designs involve asynchronous and synchronous coursework delivered at a
distance paired with immersive laboratory training in face-to-face settings at varying intervals
(Gagnon et al., 2020; Gagnon et al., 2022). Faculty and students come together on campus for
these immersion laboratories for skill practice and practical examinations (Gagnon et al., 2022).
In 2022, Gagnon and colleagues published the first case report of the outcomes of a hybrid DPT
program. Results showed graduation rates and board examination pass rates comparable to
published national benchmarks, as well as high student satisfaction (Gagnon et al., 2022). Hybrid
entry-level DPT programs have grown from roughly two accredited programs in the early 2010s
to nine at the end of the decade and an estimated eight more candidate programs in development
(Online Physical Therapy Programs, 2022; Tilson et al., 2023). With preliminary evidence
suggesting that hybrid DPT education is feasible and efficacious, along with growing hybrid
program numbers, online teaching positions are a growing choice for physical therapists
interested in teaching.
In summary, this section has provided an overview of the state of online learning in the
United States prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite resistance by some higher education
stakeholders, the overall prevalence of online courses and programs continues to grow. Faculty
engagement in online learning approaches and use of technology have increased along with

17
student enrollment growth. Growing graduate online and blended education opportunities set the
stage for the rising presence of hybrid curricula in physical therapy education.
Motivators and Demotivators of Online Faculty Work
As online learning opportunities grow, many faculty face the decision of whether to
participate in online teaching opportunities. This section discusses both motivators and
demotivators for faculty engagement in online teaching. The emergency remote teaching (ERT)
environment of the COVID-19 pandemic is described as a forced means for all higher education
stakeholders to experience online learning regardless of interest or prior experiences. Finally, the
impact of COVID-19 teaching on faculty within physical therapy programs are presented.
Faculty Motivators for Online Teaching
A variety of factors positively influence a faculty member’s consideration of remote
work. Choice and autonomy in the decision to teach online is an important motivating factor for
faculty engaging in online work; mandated online teaching assignments are a deterrent (Green,
2019; Johnson et al., 20222; Wingo et al., 2017). Personal interest, excitement, and curiosity in
technology and opportunities for professional growth, such as expanding teaching technology
knowledge and skills, pursuing innovation through new methodologies, and promotion
possibilities, are positive motivators (Bunk et al., 2015; Scott, 2012; Toner et al., 2021; Wingo et
al., 2017). Online teaching attracts many faculty as a mechanism to make education more
accessible, especially for the general population who has not been able to participate in higher
education due to family, work, and other constraints (Kentnor, 2015). Online teaching
technologies also have the potential to engage existing students in new, different, and creative
ways of learning (Toner et al., 2021). In addition to these personal motivators, institutional
factors also play a role in motivating faculty involvement in online learning.

18
Institutional variables may positively impact faculty motivation for online teaching.
Faculty workload increases with online teaching, yet release time, access to instructional
designers, and administrative support are motivating factors for new online faculty (Johnson et
al., 2022; Waits et al., 2003; Wingo et al., 2017). In 2020, nearly 25% of higher education
institutions were partnering with online program managers to support faculty in online course
design and development compared with less than 9% in 2017 (Garrett et al., 2020). About 60%
of higher education institutions require faculty training before teaching online, thereby equipping
faculty with foundational knowledge and skills of online pedagogy and practice (Garrett et al.,
2020; Johnson et al., 2022). The appeal of flexible work environments is also enticing for many
remote faculty; they can teach from anywhere (Gagnon et al., 2020; Scott, 2012; Toner et al.,
2021; Wingo et al., 2017). New work environments may be especially appealing to physical
therapists as healthcare workers who were dramatically impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic
(Goh et al., 2021; Morisawa et al., 2022; Pniak et al., 2021); the online teaching environment
affords a career change that directly utilizes their clinical knowledge and skills. The positive
motivators for remote faculty positions may help some faculty to overlook the inhibitors of
remote faculty work.
Faculty Demotivators for Online Teaching
The primary challenges or de-motivators for online teaching center around concerns over
instructional quality, student interactions, and perceptions of peers and others in the academe.
Faculty fears about poor learning outcomes and lower overall instructional quality is among the
most prevailing perceived barrier of faculty online teaching (Betts & Heaston, 2014; Bunk et al.,
2015; Lieberman, 2018; Lloyd et al., 2012; Pomerantz & Brooks, 2017; Wingo et al., 2017).
Despite studies suggesting equivalent outcomes between distance and face-to-face learning, the

19
perception of online learning as inferior is pervasive (Allen & Seaman, 2013, 2016; Johnson et
al., 2022; Means et al., 2010; Wingo et al., 2017). Other de-motivators include limited faculty
training in online pedagogy and concerns for increased faculty workload (Mansbach & Austin,
2018; Volansky, 2019; Wingo et al., 2017). Higher enrollment quotas set by administrators for
many online programs and courses may deter faculty as well (Garrett et al., 2019; Wingo et al.,
2017). Decreased connection with students is another concern of faculty (Allen & Seaman, 2013;
Baum & McPherson, 2019; Lieberman, 2018; Lloyd et al., 2012; Pomerantz & Brooks, 2017;
Wingo et al., 2017). Faculty fear lack of personal relationships (Lloyd et al., 2012), lack of
opportunities for informal and spontaneous communication (Schaberg, 2018), and inability of
learning management systems to support meaningful interactions with students (Pomerantz &
Brooks, 2017). Specific to physical therapy faculty, educational training is a potential
demotivator to online teaching (CAPTE, 2020b). Entry-level DPT curriculum models prepare
physical therapists to be clinicians, not educators, so faculty have considerable professional
development needs in teaching and technology skills (CAPTE, 2020b). Institutional factors may
also contribute to demotivation for faculty engagement in online teaching.
Higher education institutions may negatively influence faculty motivation for online
work. Historically, faculty and administrators have not been on the same page in terms of online
learning’s potential (Allen & Seaman, 2012). In 2012, 42% of faculty reported feeling excited
about online learning compared to 80% of administrators (Allen & Seaman, 2012). Despite their
excitement, most administrators lacked technical and practical knowledge about implementing
technology, which may contribute to faculty skepticism (Johnson et al., 2022). Another
demotivator relates to the limited transparency provided by university leadership and
administrators in terms of how course re-design and online teaching factors into tenure and

20
promotion decisions (Allen & Seaman, 2012; Leiderman, 2018; Lloyd et al., 2012; Maguire,
2005; Pomerantz & Brooks, 2017). Ambiguous intellectual property and copyright policies for
online course materials also demotivate faculty (Lloyd et al., 2012; Shea, 2008). Despite these
existing demotivators for online learning, the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic thrust nearly all
faculty into online teaching environments regardless of their interest or experience level.
COVID-19 Pandemic Impacts on Faculty Online Teaching Perceptions
The COVID-19 pandemic gave an opportunity for all higher education stakeholders to
engage in online learning regardless of perception or interest level (Lederman, 2020). Literature
suggests that faculty and administrator perceptions improve with direct exposure and experience
with online learning (Allen & Seaman, 2013; Johnson et al., 2022; Lederman, 2020; Legon &
Garrett, 2017). Prior to the pandemic, online learning reports in the United States consistently
found that institutions “anticipated supplementary, not transformative, changes [in online
learning] in coming years” (Legon & Garrett, 2017, p. 6; Garrett et al., 2019). The pandemic
dramatically changed exposure to and utilization of technology in higher education with
estimates that up to one million faculty in the United States delivered ERT (Fuchs, 2022;
Johnson et al., 2022). Different from deliberately planned online curricula, ERT begins rapidly
during a crisis with limited resources and limited instructor training (Fuchs, 2022). Institutions
and faculty who may have been resistant to online teaching methods prior to that point felt forced
to adopt technology, create content, and implement virtual lessons due to social distancing
mandates (Dinu et al., 2021; Jeffries et al., 2022; Lederman, 2020; Naciri et al., 2021). There was
suddenly potential to break into the change-resistant nature of the naysayers of online learning
(Allen & Seaman, 2016; Cutri & Mena, 2020; Johnson et al., 2022; Lederman, 2020). Much of
the results of the COVID-19 widespread online learning experiment are still being determined.

21
At the start of the pandemic, online learning experts were conflicted when predicting
whether the pandemic would help or harm the case for online learning in higher education.
Despite some initial hypotheses that the rapid migration to online learning formats with
untrained faculty could harm its future adoption in higher education classrooms (Lederman,
2020), emerging research suggests that online pandemic teaching will improve faculty
perceptions and increase future technology adoption (Seaman & Seaman, 2022). In 2022, 54% of
faculty reported that their opinion of online learning improved with the pandemic and 57% report
that their preferred mode of teaching moving forward will be blended formats (Seaman &
Seaman, 2022). When face-to-face teaching opportunities returned to most higher education
institutions in 2022, fewer faculty (48%) were teaching face-to-face courses compared to 98% of
faculty pre-pandemic (Seaman & Seaman, 2022). In addition, more faculty (49%) were teaching
online-only courses compared to 34% of faculty pre-pandemic (Seaman & Seaman, 2022). A
case study of 173 faculty at a Florida university found that 71% of those surveyed agreed that
they will continue teaching online after the pandemic subsides and another 61% agreed that their
use of online teaching will be more than it was prior to the pandemic (Dumont et al., 2021).
Other authors are finding similar faculty tendencies toward more classroom technology
integration (Hebert et al., 2022; Saha et al., 2022). As classroom adoption expands across higher
education as a whole, similar trends are present in physical therapy curricula.
Physical Therapy Faculty Experience of COVID-19 Online Learning Pivot
As nearly all U.S. physical therapy education programs pivoted to online learning during
the pandemic, physical therapy faculty directly experienced the benefits and challenges of online
learning. Even as early as May 2020, a survey and report by the World Physiotherapy
organization summarized that “e-learning [in physical therapy] has been underestimated,

22
education should resort more to it, and digital education can … be used in the future” (World
Physiotherapy, 2020, p. 9). Physical therapy faculty described benefits of pandemic online
learning, including increasing active learning in synchronous activities, developing new models
for psychomotor skills instruction, and incorporating telehealth competencies (Plummer, Smith,
et al., 2021). Faculty needed to be creative and collaborate with others in order to develop
effective teaching and learning strategies (Blackinton, 2020; Plummer, Smith, et al, 2021;
Unverzagt et al., 2020). Faculty developed new connections with external resources, including
teaching and learning centers and technology support departments (Plummer, Belgen Kaygisiz et
al., 2021). Physical therapy faculty noted that online learning created new opportunities for
connection with students due to the decreased perception of power differential online (Plummer,
Belgen Kaygisiz et al., 2021; Plummer, Smith, et al., 2021). These benefits of online ERT
accompanied a greater number of challenges for physical therapy faculty.
Challenges of ERT were prevalent for physical therapy faculty given the relative scarcity
of hybrid curricula pre-pandemic and the hands-on nature of content. Faculty described problems
with communicating within departments and with students, learning new technologies at a rapid
pace, and work-home life balance pressures (Majsak et al., 2022). They also reported concerns
about the quality of hands-on labs and video coaching models in providing adequate
psychomotor skill development (Majsak et al., 2022; Plummer et al., 2021a). Physical therapy
faculty worried about student well-being, stress levels, and motivation for learning which faculty
felt ill-prepared to manage (Ng et al., 2021; Plummer, Belgen Kaygisiz et al., 2021). Limited
social support and decreased connection impacted physical therapy faculty relationships with
other faculty as well as students (Plummer, Belgen Kaygisiz et al., 2021). Mental health
challenges, including loneliness, isolation, stress, and diminished well-being, were prevalent

23
among physical therapy faculty (Majsak et al., 2022; Plummer, Belgen Kaygisiz et al., 2021).
Although the conditions of the pandemic exacerbated these feelings, reports of loneliness,
isolation, and diminished sense of belonging have existed for remote faculty for many years
beforehand (Dolan, 2011; Mansbach & Austin, 2018; Schwartz et al., 2016; Toner et al., 2021).
Understanding how to support faculty motivation and belonging within online teaching positions
is needed as we move into the next decade of online and blended learning in higher education.
In summary, this section presented positive and negative motivational factors
contributing to online faculty work. The COVID-19 pandemic greatly influenced faculty
participation in online learning, regardless of interest in teaching online. As opportunities to
teach from a geographic distance continue to be available for faculty, providing support to
prevent isolation, loneliness, and diminished well-being is needed. Given the positive link
between sense of belonging and health and well-being, existing literature describing belonging
among remote faculty in higher education, including hybrid physical therapy faculty specifically,
is discussed next.
Remote Faculty Sense of Belonging
This section focuses on belonging in the context of faculty work and online environments
as an important factor in preventing isolation and loneliness. First, the theory of belonging is
described with emphasis on frequency and depth of connection between individuals. Next, the
necessity of belonging as a part of faculty work, specifically how respect and collegiality
contribute to faculty belonging, will be presented. Personal factors within the faculty member, as
well as interactions within the immediate environment, or microsystem, are described given their
influence on perceived belonging. Lastly, the implications of belonging for hybrid physical
therapy faculty will be discussed given the current landscape of academic physical therapy in the

24
United States. It is necessary to note that literature on belonging for hybrid faculty populations is
lacking. Thus, the term remote is used to most accurately reflect the current literature which
explores the experience of faculty in higher education who work in online environments at
geographic distances from campus.
Theory of Belonging and Relationship with Loneliness
The feeling of belonging is a basic human need that, if not met, can have significant
consequences on the individual’s health, work, and well-being (Allen et al., 2022; Allen et al.,
2021; Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Holt-Lunstad et al., 2015; Maslow, 1943). Belonging is
defined as a deep-rooted personal need to feel connected and valued through meaningful
interactions with others (Allen et al., 2022; Allen et al., 2021; Baumeister & Leary, 1995;
Maslow, 1943). Baumeister and Leary (1995) emphasize two critical aspects of interpersonal
interactions that relate to belonging: frequency and quality of contact with others. For an
individual to feel positive belonging, regular and frequent timing of interactions is necessary
(Allen et al., 2022; Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Furthermore, the quality of interactions should
be rooted in caring, affective concern, reciprocal interactions, and trust which is stable over time
(Allen et al., 2022; Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Brewer, 2007). A high number of connections
through dense social networks does not equate with more belonging; it is the depth of
relationships that matters (Allen et al., 2022; Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Brewer, 2007). A
person’s belonging needs along with environmental factors influence perceived belonging or
loneliness.
A common conceptualization of belonging and loneliness involves each as opposing ends
of a linear continuum of social connectedness. Loneliness is defined as a feeling of
dissatisfaction and distress from lack of desired interpersonal relationships (Bruce et al., 2019;

25
Lim et al., 2021). The distress aspect of this definition is especially important; some individuals
lack interpersonal and social connections, but do not experience the negative consequences
(Burke, 2009; Cigna et al., 2020; Holt-Lunstad et al., 2015; Ong et al., 2016). Research widely
establishes that both physical and mental health consequences result from feelings of loneliness
(Cigna et al., 2020; Holt-Lunstad et al., 2015; Ong et al., 2016). Most drastically, loneliness
increases one’s risk of mortality by 26%, independent of other factors such as age,
socioeconomic status, or health status (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2015). Also pronounced are the
mental health impacts of loneliness, including impaired cognitive functioning, increased
depressive symptoms, poorer sleep quality, and lower perceived well-being (Cigna et al., 2020;
Holt-Lunstad et al., 2015). Whether these negative consequences result from limited social
connections depends on each unique individual and their perception of person-environment fit
(Walton & Brady, 2017). Specifically, the remote environment has an association with loneliness
and decreased social connectedness.
Social connectedness within the remote work environment has implications for work
engagement and productivity. Employees frequently report loneliness as a negative effect of
remote work environments (Buffer, 2020; Hadley & Mortensen, 2021; Knight et al., 2022; Yang
et al., 2022). Loneliness is experienced by 24% of fully remote workers (Buffer, 2020) and 22%
of hybrid employees, defined as spending approximately 40% of their time at home per week
(Knight et al., 2022). Cigna’s 2020 Loneliness Report, which surveyed 10,400 adults in the
United States, found that remote workers were more likely than non-remote workers to feel alone
and isolated as well as to report a lack of meaningful relationships and companionship at work
(Cigna, 2020). Loneliness affects work performance; it is associated with less focus, less
creativity, increased stress, decreased resilience, and lower retention (Cigna et al., 2020; Murthy,

26
2017). On the other hand, belonging is strongly correlated with engagement at work: 91% of
employees who report high belonging are engaged at work compared to only 20% engagement
for those with no belonging (Qualtrics, 2021). Feeling belonging at work increases job
performance, lowers turnover risk, increases organizational loyalty, and lessens career stall (Carr
et al., 2019; Coqual, 2020). Thus, feeling belonging at work, especially remote work, is
important for employee physical and mental well-being. Furthermore, belonging is an important
aspect of faculty work in the higher education environment.
Collegial Academic Environments
Belonging is an essential contributor to meaningful faculty work and faculty satisfaction
in higher education. Gappa and colleagues (2007) performed an extensive review of the literature
to develop an evidence-based model of essential work elements for faculty positions. Rooted in a
foundation of respect, the five essential elements of faculty work were employment equity,
academic freedom and autonomy, flexibility, professional growth, and collegiality (Gappa et al.,
2007). Figure 1 illustrates these five elements.

27
Figure 1
Essential Elements of Faculty Work Supporting Belonging
Note. Adapted and used with permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. from J. M. Gappa, A. E.
Austin, and A. G. Trice, Rethinking Faculty Work, 2007; permission conveyed through
Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.
Respect and collegiality are especially relevant to the faculty experience of belonging;
one cannot have belonging without respect and collegial interactions (Haviland et al., 2020).
Collegiality extends beyond being courteous and nice at work; it requires genuine care and
concern of colleagues both personally and professionally (Gappa et al., 2007; Haviland et al.,
2020). Professional respect and value of expertise also underpin collegiality (Haviland et al.,
2020). Haviland describes that characteristics of collegial environments include shared mission
Respect
Equity in Academic Appointments
Academic
Freedom
and Autonomy
Flexibility Professional Growth
Collegiality

28
and purpose, values of respect, trust, care and concern among team members, open exchange of
information, and participatory decision-making (Gappa et al., 2007; Haviland et al., 2020).
Collegiality is a mutual responsibility of an individual and the organization: the individual is
responsible for holding herself and others to collegial standards during interactions within the
microsystem and the institution should enact policies and structures that support inclusion within
the broader faculty’s mesosystem (Gappa et al., 2007). Although collegiality and respect
between faculty creates and supports belonging, geographic diversity can pose a challenge.
Online faculty present difficulties to belonging due to their geographic diversity. Gappa
and colleagues (2007) assert, “As faculty demographics and appointment types become more
diverse, collegiality becomes more important than ever to cultivate—but perhaps more
challenging than ever to achieve” (Gappa et al., 2007, p.307). Inclusion of individuals at a
geographic distance from campus in online curricular models fosters geographic diversity
(Schwartz et al., 2016; Schwartz et al., 2018; Toner et al., 2021). Faculty in regions that are
distant from their institution provide important knowledge and insights into regional
environments, including professional practice and social norms, while also increasing the
institution’s visibility in that region (Toner et al., 2021). Geographically dispersed faculty bring
new knowledge, fresh ideas, and different perspectives into the existing university culture that
would otherwise be absent (Schwartz et al., 2018; Toner et al., 2021). Remote identity also
creates a connection point for faculty and students with similar identities, such as living in a
similar area or coming from geographically disadvantaged backgrounds (Nuciforo, 2015;
Schwartz et al., 2016). As higher education institutions seek to increase diversity among faculty,
especially in physical therapy education (CAPTE, 2020a), online education has a natural appeal.

29
Yet, remote faculty often experience challenges to collegiality that create feelings of isolation
and diminished belonging.
Challenges to Faculty Collegiality
Remote faculty experience challenges to collegiality both in the immediate department
and more broadly in the organization. Literature widely supports the lack of collegiality
experienced by non-tenure track and adjunct faculty in higher education (Gappa et al., 2007;
Haviland et al., 2017; Haviland et al., 2020; Kezar, 2012). The collegiality problems for nontenure track and adjunct faculty center around a historical academic culture that revered the
tenure-track researcher as a powerful decision-maker with limited respect and governance
participation for faculty with other academic appointment types (Gappa et al., 2007; Haviland et
al., 2020; Kezar, 2012). Haviland et al. (2017) describe non-tenure track and adjunct faculty as
“separate but not quite equal” (p. 505). Understanding the historical challenges to collegiality are
important given the nature of physical therapy faculty positions. In 2021, 51% of full-time
faculty positions within DPT programs were non-tenure track lines (CAPTE, 2020a). In addition,
adjunct faculty make up nearly half of total faculty numbers (CAPTE, 2020a). A recent profile of
physical therapy program faculty shows that 45% of faculty are at the assistant professor level
and another 40% lack a terminal academic degree (Hinman & Brown, 2017). Thus, the very
nature of appointment types and academic profiles of physical therapy faculty places them at risk
for decreased collegiality, which are behaviors necessary to support faculty belonging. Adding
the layer of remote worker to physical therapy faculty roles has additional implications for
collegiality and belonging.
Remote faculty of all appointment types experience decreased collegiality and
community. Qualitative research shows that remote faculty, both tenure and non-tenure track,

30
experience lack of collegiality and community in the online setting (Terosky & Heasley, 2016).
Remote faculty report small networks and limited opportunities for informal socialization both
among faculty peers and students (Christopher, 2021; Mansbach & Austin, 2018; Schwartz et al.,
2016). As opposed to the bi-directional communication and professional responsibility described
by Haviland et al. (2020) as central to collegiality, remote faculty reported that seeking support
was one-sided and self-initiated resulting in decreased feelings of community (Schwartz et al.,
2016). Remote faculty support for issues outside of technical problems, such as professional
identity and philosophy of online teaching, were largely absent (Schwartz et al., 2016). In
addition to these features of the immediate environment, the broader environment also impacts
remote faculty collegiality.
The persistent view of online learning as inferior to traditional face-to-face learning
undermines the respect and value necessary to promote collegial behaviors and belonging. From
2013-2019, the number of faculty teaching an online course for credit increased from 30% to
46% (Johnson et al., 2022). Despite this increase in the number of faculty teaching with
technology, the majority of faculty still questioned its equivalence with face-to-face instruction
(Johnson et al., 2022). In 2019, only 38% of faculty agreed or strongly agreed with the statement
that online courses achieve at least equivalent learning outcomes to in-person courses (Johnson
et al., 2022). Persistent negative perceptions of online learning prevented online learning
programs and faculty from being viewed with respect and expertise, which Greenhow and
colleagues (2022) suggest leads to online faculty exclusion. The authors describe two separate,
isolated ecosystems within academia: one of online education and one of traditional, in-person
education (Greenhow et al., 2022). This leads to academic attitudes and cultures that minimize
collegial behaviors and limit remote faculty belonging (Haviland et al., 2020; Toner et al., 2021).

31
Given the challenges to belonging experienced by remote faculty, yet its importance in remote
faculty’s work, the need to understand best practices for supporting belonging persists.
In summary, this section described the theory of belonging and consequences of lack of
belonging, including the negative health and work-related effects of loneliness. Belonging at
work is rooted in respect and collegiality, but geographically diverse faculty inherently bring
challenges to these two essential elements of faculty work. The profile of physical therapy
faculty appointments, including predominance of non-tenure track and adjunct appointments
with assistant professor rank and lack of a terminal academic degrees, suggests that online
physical therapy faculty may experience diminished collegiality and belonging given literature
on remote faculty in other disciplines.
Best Practices to Support Remote Faculty Belonging
This section explores promising practices for promoting remote faculty belonging.
Strategies span from department-specific to institutional initiatives, including mentorship
programs, professional development, social gatherings, and culture change initiatives. These
initiatives target the faculty member’s knowledge and skills, as well as interactions within the
faculty’s microsystem and mesosystem. It is important to note the limited amount of current
research to improve belonging, connection, and community among full-time remote faculty.
Much of the available literature is related to supporting adjunct remote faculty. Thus, the adjunct
faculty literature provides a helpful foundation from which to consider belonging initiatives for
full-time remote faculty. In addition, Maier and colleagues (2012) found no difference in the
perception of isolation among adjunct versus full-time remote faculty, highlighting that all
remote faculty are susceptible to lack of belonging. As a result, the literature presented in this

32
section does not distinguish between full-time and adjunct remote faculty initiatives or
perceptions.
Department and University Programs
Opportunities for interaction and connection outside of the immediate academic
department and in the larger university community supports faculty belonging. Specifically,
professional development programs enhance skill development while also promoting belonging
and connectedness for remote faculty. Professional development programs vary in design and
make-up: some are single sessions while others have a multiple-session commitment; some are
focused on instruction and pedagogy while others address broader aspects of the faculty role
such as scholarship; and some are voluntary enrollment while others are mandatory (Betts &
Heaston, 2014; Elliott et al., 2015). Regardless of design, remote faculty desire more
opportunities to dialogue with other remote faculty about teaching challenges (Butters & Gann,
2022) and are most satisfied with professional development opportunities that support
development of effective teaching practices (Maier, 2012). Elliott and colleagues (2015)
recommend using a needs assessment to design professional development for remote faculty
given diverse professional development needs while also emphasizing the importance of
programmatic opportunities to open communication channels both within departments and across
the broader institution. Similarly, Flynn et al. (2013) recommend building community and
culture as one of three primary foci of development programs for remote faculty. Although some
remote faculty benefit from new collegial networks as they interact in faculty development
programs (Mansbach & Austin, 2018), mentor programs and communities of practice provide
another means for faculty interaction at a more frequent and deep level.

33
The most widely supported intervention to improve remote faculty belonging is via
mentoring programs. Mentor models can be fully online or hybrid, and typically pair a more
experienced faculty member with a novice faculty member (Bedford et al., 2021). In addition to
supporting teaching skills, mentor programs support belonging and connectedness (Bedford et
al., 2021; Luongo & O’Brien, 2018; Terosky & Heasley, 2015). Mentorship programs help
faculty establish trust with colleagues, build relationships, and share expertise beyond just
content-related knowledge over time (Bedford et al., 2021; Morton, 2012; Smith, 2015). Respect
of expertise is a critical aspect of collegiality in higher education (Haviland et al., 2020). Helping
new faculty understand and navigate organizational culture is another benefit of mentoring
programs (Bedford et al., 2021). Perhaps most importantly, remote faculty value mentoring and
its role in promoting success in their position (Wingo et al., 2017). Over 50% of remote faculty
expressed mentoring as a community-building strategy of high interest (Maier, 2012). In addition
to being the mentee, nearly 50% of remote faculty saw being a mentor for new remote faculty as
an important way to build community (Maier, 2012). Mentoring opportunities are often part of
broader professional development programs that can promote remote faculty belonging.
Communities of practice, faculty learning communities, and other similar programs
provide opportunities for connection and community that support belonging for remote faculty.
These group-centered communities offer a less structured environment than faculty development
initiatives to ask questions, discuss topics of interest, share challenges, brainstorm solutions, and
provide support through monthly or semi-regular interaction (Flynn, 2013; Maier et al., 2012;
Tucker, 2022). These groups support teaching-related goals while also lessening the negative
impacts of isolation (Maier et al., 2012). Recent research of implementing a professional learning
community among remote faculty during COVID-related ERT showed maintenance of the

34
participants’ perception of community despite the isolating nature of the pandemic and remote
work (Tucker, 2022). In addition to programs designed to support faculty connection and
belonging, a number of departmental and institutional practice recommendations support remote
faculty belonging.
Communication and Evaluation Practices
Frequency of communication matters for remote faculty belonging. More frequent
communication supports visibility, inclusion, and depth of professional relationships for remote
faculty (Christopher, 2021; Ferencz, 2017; Holt & Clements, 2021; Morton, 2012)). Scheduled,
formal opportunities for departmental interaction include participation in faculty meetings,
annual reviews, department initiatives, and university committees (Toner et al., 2021). The
literature also describes the importance of informal gatherings, including 30 minute tea times,
virtual lunches, assigned pair-calls (Fosselin & West-Duffy, 2018), virtual water cooler chats
(Schwartz et al., 2018), a teacher’s lounge and leadership lunches (Christopher, 2021) to support
relationship building with faculty peers and administration. Remote faculty view day-to-day
communication as more important for belonging than periodic or annual events, such as retreats,
because day-to-day communication tends to support more meaningful connections (Maier,
2012). In addition to the frequency of communication, the target of the communication is also an
important consideration.
Frequent opportunities to engage with other faculty and administrators is especially
important to remote faculty. Interactions with administrators are critical for remote faculty
understanding of their performance, their contributions to the department, and areas for
improvement (Coqual, 2020). Despite recognition and praise from leadership being important for
remote workers (Coqual, 2020; Fosselin & West-Duffy, 2018), remote faculty describe typical

35
performance-related communication from leadership occurring only when concerns arise (Dolan,
2011). Evaluation and feedback opportunities help to instill a sense of belonging, especially if
the work has perceived value and is worthy of public recognition (Coqual, 2020; Fosselin &
West-Duffy, 2018). Classroom observation or teaching portfolios for remote faculty observation
also offer opportunities for feedback and peer interaction (Morton, 2012). A sample of remote
faulty found that nearly 52% of the subjects surveyed had a strong desire for peer review
opportunities at their organization (Maier, 2012). Remote faculty desire more opportunities for
peer collaboration, including teaching and research discussions, than currently occur
(Christopher, 2021). Another area of departmental consideration for improving belonging is
resource access.
Access to Resources
Access to technology-related resources and support also influences remote faculty
belonging. Brindley and Zawacki-Richter (2003) found that lack of technical support,
specifically prompt and timely technical support, was isolating for remote faculty members.
Dolan (2011) had similar findings in which remote faculty described the importance of state-ofthe-art equipment to effectively perform job duties. In addition, availability of instructional
designers to assist with online pedagogical principles and delivery strategies is important for
alleviating instructional quality concerns held by some remote faculty while also decreasing
workload stresses (Betts & Heaston, 2014; Jaschik & Lederman, 2019; Johnson et al., 2022;
Mansbach & Austin, 2018). Recommendations include equal access to resources across all
department staff, regardless of whether face-to-face or remote faculty (Morton, 2012). Faculty
perception of availability and access of resources is closely associated with perceptions of
institutional support; less resources lead to decreased teaching satisfaction and disconnect with

36
administration (Bolliger & Wasilik, 2009; Wingo et al., 2017). Consideration of department
culture and institutional culture is a final area with recommendations for supporting remote
faculty.
Departmental and Institutional Culture
Department and institutional culture related to online learning is a critical consideration
for remote faculty belonging. As already established in this literature review, online learning has
a historical perception in higher education as being less valuable and lower quality than
traditional education methods (Allen & Seaman, 2012; Allen et al., 2016; Terosky & Heasley,
2016; Toner et al., 2021). Departments and institutions should enact policies and procedures and
encourage norms and values that support inclusion of all faculty, including active participation
and voting rights from the department level through academic governance and campus-wide
committee appointments (Toner et al., 2021). Leadership should encourage remote faculty to
participate in broad service-related roles that include collaboration in research (Toner et al.,
2021). Haviland et al. (2020) emphasize the importance of shared, participatory decision-making
and access to institutional information for collegiality to occur. Furthermore, faculty suggest that
an institutional climate of experimentation with new methods and technologies for teaching is
one of the most important ways institutions can support online teaching (Jaschik & Lederman,
2019). Institutional and departmental culture must support, value, and enact these requirements
to support remote faculty belonging.
In summary, this section described best practices to support faculty belonging in remote
appointments, including formal programs for faculty-peer interaction, communication and
feedback practices, access to resources, and organizational culture. However, physical therapy

37
faculty face challenges to belonging due to broader national trends within academic physical
therapy in the United States.
Barriers to Hybrid Physical Therapy Faculty Belonging
The current landscape of academic physical therapy brings unique challenges to online
physical therapy faculty belonging. Specifically, physical therapy education in the United States
is facing DPT program proliferation, faculty shortages, significant faculty professional
development needs, excessive program director workloads, and declining student well-being.
This national environment of physical therapy education creates an additive effect on the
inherent challenges to belonging within remote faculty positions in higher education in general.
Academic physical therapy is experiencing a shortage of qualified physical therapy
program faculty. Reasons for the shortage include program expansion and increasing retirements
from the baby boomer generation of physical therapists (ACAPT, 2021). CAPTE requires that at
least 50% of core faculty members possess an academic doctoral degree, such as a Doctor of
Philosophy (PhD), Doctor of Education (EdD), Doctor of Science (DSc), or others (Hinman &
Brown, 2017). In 2017, estimates suggested that 26% of DPT programs nationally were in noncompliance with this criterion (Hinman & Brown, 2017) and program expansions increase the
problem (Deusinger & Landers, 2022). The shortage of academic doctoral faculty results in
filling faculty positions with clinical DPT faculty with limited teaching and scholarship
experience (ACAPT, 2021; Bliss et al., 2018; Kaufman, 2009; Hinman & Brown, 2017). The
new faculty lack experienced faculty mentors available to provide necessary support and
knowledge given the shortages. Varnado and colleagues (2021) showed that junior physical
therapy faculty with more support and mentorship have higher job satisfaction and higher
retention in academia. Thus, faculty shortages in physical therapy education place new remote

38
faculty at risk for isolation and diminished belonging. In addition to limited mentorship, new
faculty have high professional development needs.
New physical therapy faculty have professional development needs extending across
teaching, scholarship, and service areas. In the early 2000s, Pagliarulo and Lynn (2002)
conducted a survey research project to understand the professional needs of new physical therapy
faculty members. Pagliarulo and Lynn (2002) found that new faculty needs were highest in
scholarship and teaching domains. This included using computer technology, knowledge of
learning theories and teaching strategies, and curriculum development (Pagliarulo & Lynn,
2002). Despite the transition of physical therapy curricula to DPT as an entry-level degree,
curricula in the early 2000s mirrors today’s curricula as it relates to teaching preparedness, which
is very little (Woods, 2001). In a subsequent study, Pagliarulo and Lynn (2004) identified
preferred faculty development activities by new faculty: individual consultations, colleague
assessments, student assessments, grants and travel funds, and seminars. Faculty preferences
were in conflict with program director preferences, who were more likely to support off-campus
workshops, sabbatical leaves, and leaves of absence for new faculty development (Pagliarulo &
Lynn, 2004). This difference in preferred faculty development activities is potentially
problematic for new faculty: new faculty prefer one-on-one consultations, but faculty shortages
are prevalent; program directors prefer off-campus workshops for new faculty that do not
support building connections and relationships within the department or institution (Pagliarulo &
Lynn, 2004). In addition to professional development needs, another barrier to online physical
therapy faculty belonging is access to program leadership.
Program directors have limited capacity to address faculty belonging needs. The physical
therapy program director is viewed as a “mid-level manager that functions as a conduit between

39
program faculty and higher-level administration” (Bowens, 2021, p. 95) and has responsibilities
extending from communication, programmatic planning, and finances to faculty recruitment and
assessment (Bennie & Rodriguez, 2019; CAPTE, 2020b; Luedtke-Hoffman et al., 2010). Recent
reports highlight over-extended program directors that are burdened by excessive workloads
(Bennie & Rodriguez, 2019). Most program directors currently have less than 4 years of
experience in their role and took the position directly from faculty positions without any formal
orientation or leadership training (Bennie & Rodriguez, 2019; Gordon, 2014; Luedtke-Hoffman
et al., 2010). A lack of formal leadership training impacts the program director’s ability to create
an inclusive and collegial environment, as well as provide faculty mentorship (Gordon, 2014).
Cited reasons for program director turnover and retention problems relate closely to high
workload, administrative burden, and competing time demands (Hinman et al., 2014). Program
director time is largely spent on reading and responding to memos, teaching, and program
planning despite rating faculty retention and development as the fourth most important priority
of the program director role (Bennie & Rodriguez, 2019). In reality, building relationships,
especially those that emphasize personal connection, are less of a priority. In addition to program
director stressors, physical therapy students as learners are also facing significant stress.
Physical therapy students have significant well-being needs that may be additionally
challenging for faculty to connect and engage with in the hybrid learning environment. A multicenter trial of 1025 DPT graduates representing 34 DPT programs across the country found that
DPT students demonstrate greater exhaustion during their program than medical students
(Shields et al., 2018). Over one third of DPT students surveyed reported being less than satisfied
with available mental health services (Shields et al., 2018). The limited mental health support is
especially concerning given that DPT students in hybrid curricula may be at higher risk for

40
mental health issues given the prevalence of isolation among remote students (Baum &
McPherson, 2019). Nearly 28% of DPT students graduate with a debt load greater than their
lifetime economic power (Shields et al., 2021) which places additional finance-related stress and
anxiety on student performance (Pisaniello et al., 2019). First year DPT students experience
academic and personal challenges that require faculty, peer, and outside support (Plack et al.,
2021). These physical therapy student characteristics may negatively influence instructor-student
interactions, especially as it relates to forming relationships and deepening connections (Smith,
2015). Yet, students are an important source of faculty belonging (Mansbach & Austin, 2018;
Smith, 2015; Terosky & Heasley, 2016). To identify practices that support faculty belonging and
mitigate potential challenges to belonging, a deeper understanding of the experience of hybrid
physical therapy faculty is needed.
In summary, this section provided an overview of the barriers to achieving belonging
within physical therapy academic institutions. Faculty shortages, program proliferation, high
faculty development needs, excessive program director workloads, and decreased DPT student
mental health and well-being are features of the current physical therapy academic landscape that
threaten remote faculty belonging. Exploring the unique experiences of remote physical therapy
faculty may identify similar or additional practices to promote belonging.
Conceptual Framework
The experience of faculty belonging involves the perception of an individual’s fit within
an environment (Walton & Brady, 2017). Multiple, interacting layers of environmental
influences, including the immediate environment within which the person intermingles
frequently, as well as the broader societal environment and its history, culture, and social norms,
impact belonging perceptions (Allen et al., 2016). The ecological systems theory emphasizes that

41
broad environmental contexts influence an individual’s development as opposed to simply the
immediate environment (e.g., school or home). Bronfenbrenner selected the word ecology, or
ecological, deliberately to describe the complex environments influencing an individual’s
development (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). More specifically, he theorized about the effect of
interactions between a person (e.g., hybrid faculty member) and the many systems they
experience. Four systems, known as the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and
macrosystem, each have an explicit or implicit impact on a person over time (Bronfenbrenner,
1977). Each of these systems, or environments, affects the individual and individual’s
interactions.
A visual depiction of Bronfenbrenner’s model consists of nested concentric circles
extending out from a person in the center. The individual presents with personal characteristics,
feelings, and competencies that they bring to their interactions and relationships within the
systems (Allen et al, 2016; Bronfenbrenner, 1977). Each environment (system) extends out from
the person in the center. The first concentric circle around the person represents the microsystem.
The microsystem is the immediate environment and the people of that environment that the
person most regularly interacts (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). For the hybrid faculty member, the
microsystem is comprised of work relationships, including faculty peers, program directors, and
students. From the most central microsystem comes the next nested concentric circle
representing the mesosystem. The mesosystem depicts the interactions that occur from the
microsystem. It includes relationships between faculty and other faculty, faculty and leadership
(e.g., program directors), and faculty and students, all of which have direct or indirect effects on
the hybrid faculty member in the center.

42
The largest and most distant concentric circle impacting the individual is that of the
macrosystem. The macrosystem in Bronfenbrenner’s model refers to larger social, economic,
educational, legal, and political systems (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). This system has the most
implicit effect on the individual because it involves embedded societal customs and practices
(Bronfenbrenner, 1977). This literature review has presented relevant aspects of the macrosystem
influencing hybrid physical therapy faculty belonging, including societal online learning
perceptions, ERT from the COVID-19 pandemic, and the national physical therapy academic
landscape. Across all of these systems and circles is the concept of interactivity and reciprocity
(Bronfenbrenner, 1977); the individual and the environment have bi-directional effects on each
other.
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory provides a relevant theoretical framework
from which to understand the interactions between hybrid faculty and their environments that
support feelings of belonging or feelings of loneliness (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). As depicted in
Figure 2 below, the hybrid physical therapy faculty member’s microsystem includes faculty
peers, students, and the program director. These relationships involve interactions that occur at
different frequencies and depths, but each have a potential influence on belonging (Allen et al.,
2016; Coqual, 2020). Collegiality is an essential element of these interactions that is necessary
for faculty belonging (Gappa et al., 2007; Haviland et al., 2020), as well as accessibility for
frequent, meaningful interactions (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). The mesosystem influences
remote faculty belonging through departmental and institutional practices and programs that
impact communication and connection among the people in the microsystem. Departmental
practices include communication and feedback procedures, access to technological resources,
and the department’s culture. Mentoring, professional development programs, and learning

43
communities also comprise the mesosystem which create formal opportunities for faculty skill
development and connection with colleagues that support or inhibit remote faculty belonging.
Bronfenbrenner’s model will support deeper understanding of the interactions between factors in
the microsystem and mesosystem that influence hybrid physical therapy faculty belonging in
supportive and detrimental ways.
Figure 2
Conceptual Framework for Hybrid Physical Therapy Faculty Sense of Belonging
Faculty
Peers
Program
Directors
Students
C
&
om
Ev
m
a
unication
P
luation
ractices
Access to
Technology
Resources
De
C
p
u
artmental
lture
Hybrid Faculty
Sense of
Belonging
C
Accessibility
ol egiality
Department &
University Programs

44
Summary
Belonging is a fundamental human need. Humans seek meaningful interaction and caring
relationships with others for physical and psychological safety. The consequence of lack of
belonging, or loneliness, has significant ramifications on one’s physical and mental health and
well-being. Relationships that exude belonging extend deeper than simple niceties and
professional courtesy; belonging involves interpersonal trust and respect that creates a deep
concern for the well-being of others. In higher education, this genuine concern for others is
called collegiality, which develops through trusting and respectful work behaviors and
environments. Online teaching positions have challenged collegiality due to the geographic
diversity they bring to academic departments. As online learning has grown over the past 2
decades, more faculty and students are engaging in technology for learning. Yet, online learning
has a history of misperceptions about its quality which demotivates some faculty and creates
tension with administrators. As DPT education expands to more online, hybrid delivery
curricular models, understanding the experience of belonging of full-time, hybrid physical
therapy faculty is important. Program expansion, shortages of qualified faculty, excessive
program director workloads, and diminished student well-being challenges the environment of
academic physical therapy. The purpose of this study was to understand the experience of
belonging among hybrid physical therapy faculty in order to identify and understand practices
that support their work in years to come.

45
Chapter Three: Methodology
This chapter explains the methodological approach for exploring the experience of
belonging among full-time, hybrid physical therapy faculty. First, a qualitative study design is
described, including the participants, semi-structured interview protocol, and data collection
procedures. A reflection on my researcher positionality attempts to mitigate potential biases and
assumptions in the data collection and analysis process. Finally, data analysis procedures,
including efforts to maximize credibility and trustworthiness, are presented along with essential
procedures to protect human subjects.
Research Questions
This study explored sense of belonging among hybrid physical therapy faculty. The
following research questions anchored the purpose:
1. What is the experience of belonging for full-time hybrid physical therapy faculty?
2. What are the supports and barriers of belonging for full-time hybrid physical therapy
faculty?
Overview of Design
Qualitative methods formed the study design in order to understand the experience of
belonging of full-time hybrid physical therapy faculty members. Qualitative design enabled
participants to share unique experiences, their interpretation of those experiences, and the
meaning applied to the experiences (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Using a field study approach,
recruited participants were hybrid physical therapy faculty within ten accredited and candidatefor-accreditation DPT programs in the United States (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Interviews
were a semi-structured, open-ended interview approach, including pre-scripted questions with

46
specific sequence and wording (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). A video conferencing software was
utilized to conduct the interviews (Johnson & Christensen, 2015).
Table 1
Data Sources
Research questions Interviews
RQ1: What is the experience of belonging for full-time hybrid physical therapy
faculty?
X
RQ2: What are the supports and barriers of belonging for full-time hybrid
physical therapy faculty?
X
The Researcher
Careful consideration of researcher positionality and resulting bias and assumptions are
important when designing and implementing a credible study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Numerous facets of my identity place me in a position of power in the United States (Morgan,
2018): I am White, of Western-European descent, Christian, and middle class. In terms of
academic physical therapy, I am a full-time faculty member, hold a leadership position within
two courses, participate in numerous department committees, earned board-certifications in
neurologic and geriatric clinical practice, and have over 10 years of full-time academic
experience in DPT education. Aspects of my identity that may have subjected me to oppression
(Morgan, 2018) included being female, having a non-tenure-track appointment, lacking a
terminal academic degree (e.g., Ph.D), and only 4 years of experience in hybrid DPT education.
My personal experience of belonging as a hybrid physical therapy faculty member in a DPT
program may have resulted in assumptions about the experience of others. Any of these facets of

47
my personal and faculty identity may have created biases and power differentials between myself
and study participants as I collected and analyzed data.
The research process involved intentional steps to mitigate the implicit biases that
accompanied my personal and professional identities. First, I committed to deep engagement and
rich, thick description within the study procedures (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I compiled
detailed field notes during and immediately after interviews. I reflected both before and after
each interview to consider how my position influenced my interview questioning, tone, and
interaction with subjects (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Self-monitoring during the interviews
ensured that I remained present and focused on the experiences and details each participant
provided (Patton, 2002). It was necessary to utilize member checks to corroborate my data
analysis, along with deep engagement with the data and reflexivity during data analysis
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). My communication with respondents also mitigated bias. I
intentionally shared limited information about me as the researcher within my recruitment
documents to avoid power positions (e.g., number of years in academia). I also communicated
with respondents that there were no right or wrong answers to interview questions. Finally, I was
conscious of my dress to ensure I was professional but not so professional as to intimidate or
create a sense of power differential. Disciplined reflection and self-monitoring along with
purposeful data collection and analysis procedures helped to limit the influence of my power and
positionality within the study.
Data Source: Interviews
The study’s primary data source was interviews. Interviews provided an in-depth,
personalized understanding of the experience of belonging among hybrid physical therapy

48
faculty members. One-on-one interactions over approximately 60 minutes allowed exploration of
perceptions, meaning, and context for hybrid faculty feeling of belonging.
Participants
The target population for this field study was full-time hybrid physical therapy faculty
members. Hybrid physical therapy faculty were defined as faculty who teach in a DPT program
while living at a geographic distance from campus that limits frequency of on-site teaching.
Inclusion criteria were a current physical therapy faculty member of any rank with at least one
year of experience in a full-time capacity. Participants needed to be employed by a CAPTEaccredited or candidate for accreditation DPT program.
The sampling method for this study was purposeful. The benefit of a purposeful sample
was that I selected subjects who were best suited to provide insights into the research questions
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Snowball and network sampling helped me to recruit subjects by
leveraging my existing network of academic physical therapy faculty to recruit other participants
from broader networks (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I contacted DPT program directors with a
hybrid curricular model by email and asked them to distribute the study information sheet
approved by the University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) and my
contact information to their full-time hybrid faculty. Interested faculty then reached out to me
and completed an eligibility questionnaire with inclusion criteria to ensure appropriateness for
study participation. Participants who met the inclusion criteria were invited to schedule an
interview. The target sample size, approximately 15 participants, was achieved when saturation
in themes across subjects occurred (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Relevant demographic
information needed for this study included: years of physical therapy experience, years of
physical therapy teaching experience, years of experience within the current hybrid faculty

49
position, and the DPT program model (e.g., hybrid-only versus both hybrid and residential
curricular pathways).
Instrumentation
The design of the interview protocol was a semi-structured format. The semi-structured
approach included a pre-established list of interview questions with some flexibility in the
question order and whether all questions are asked (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This design
helped me gather comparable information across all subjects while also being adaptable to
question each person’s unique experiences differently (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). An interview
guide helped to ensure a systematic process, including using a standardized introduction to
review research subject rights and protections, as well as a standardized conclusion to describe
follow-up procedures (Patton, 2002). Appendix A includes the complete interview guide.
The study protocol included 13 interview questions. The questions were based in the
theoretical framework of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory, thereby exploring
personal and environmental factors influencing belonging (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). More
specifically, the questions centered around understanding hybrid physical therapy faculty sense
of belonging as it related to interactions within the microsystem, specifically faculty peers,
students, and program directors, and the mesosystem’s environmental supports and barriers.
Most question types included in the protocol were related to Patton’s (2002) categories of
behaviors/experience and opinions/values. All questions except two focused on the present time
(Patton, 2002). Careful analysis of questions ensured a “truly open-ended” nature with probes to
encourage rich description and details (Patton, 2002, p. 353). All questions directly linked back
to the conceptual framework about environments and systems impacting belonging among
hybrid physical therapy faculty.

50
Data Collection Procedures
Data collection procedures required careful and systematic attention for each interview.
Interviews were conducted online via Zoom. Recordings on a Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act (HIPAA)-compliant Zoom account ensured a greater level of privacy. Each
60-minute interview was recorded and transcribed. I took abbreviated field notes during each
interview session to capture in-the-moment impressions about the conversation. I completed
transcription to encourage deeper immersion in the data, which also supported credibility and
trustworthiness (Patton, 2002). I spent at least 30 minutes following each interview journaling
(Patton, 2002). Journaling involved detailed notetaking about the interview, including gut
reactions to the overall interview quality, self-assessment by the interviewer, and impression of
the rapport with the interviewee and their responses (Patton, 2002). In addition, I elaborated, or
expanded on what I felt, observed, and experienced during the interview to aid in the overall
study’s rigor.
Data Analysis
Data was analyzed to determine codes and emerging themes (Creswell & Creswell,
2018). Participant recruitment continued until achieving data saturation, wherein no additional
new themes emerged (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Saturation occurred at 15 participants. I
utilized the data analysis software QST NVivo® for thematic analysis (Creswell & Creswelll,
2018). All participants were invited to perform member checks, involving review of themes and
analysis to ensure that my interpretation matched participant perceptions and experiences
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).

51
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Credibility and trustworthiness of qualitative studies ensures plausible and accurate
findings. Comparable to internal validity in quantitative methodology, strategies to enhance
credibility helped to safegaurd that qualitative data analysis was accurate and that the findings
truly represented the data collected (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Two specific strategies employed
to ensure credibility in this study included member checks and engagement with the data
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Member checks with participants occurred following data analysis. Member checks
occurred by contacting subjects for review of data analysis themes and subthemes. The subjects
were invited to verify if their voice was represented within the analysis and if not, what differed.
This feedback on my analysis helped to ensure that my interpretation and understanding from an
interview accurately represented the participants’ perceptions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Engagement with data also enhanced credibility. I ensured deep immersion in the data to
inform the data analysis and findings. Deep engagement occurred by adequate sampling of
participants with saturation of themes observed. In addition, personally transcribing the
interviews and engaging in frequent review of reflective notes from interviews supported
engagement with data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Looking for alternate explanations of findings
or negative case analyses while immersed in data collection and analysis also supported
credibility. Both member checks and engagement with data helped to mitigate potential concerns
of my implicit biases, positionality, and worldview with the data analysis.
Trustworthiness was another essential element of the study design. Also known as
reliability in quantitative methodology, trustworthiness describes the consistency of data analysis
with the data collected (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). An audit trail recorded notes about data

52
collection, thematic analysis, and immersion with the data. The audit trail was meant to help
others to understand the process I used for arriving at the study results, thus improving the
dependability of me and my findings.
Ethics
The study served the interests of hybrid and geographically separated faculty. This
faculty group has a known history of isolation within higher education (Mansbach & Austin,
2018; Schwartz et al., 2016; Toner et al., 2021). A benefit-to-harm analysis for study participants
suggested that hybrid faculty members could benefit from this study due to increased insights
and awareness of individual and organizational factors that contributed to feeling belonging;
however, it was also possible for participant harm if interview questions triggered negative
experiences and subsequent emotional or psychological responses (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
There was potential for the DPT education departments to benefit in terms of reputation and
recruitment of faculty if positive sense of belonging factors are identified within its structure.
Yet, there was also potential for the department’s reputational harm, as well as negative feelings
to emerge from other faculty groups (e.g., tenure track faculty). I holistically assessed the study’s
potential risks and benefits from my position as researcher and hybrid faculty member.
The study’s procedures were consistent with ethical standards of research conduct. I
submitted the study procedures to the University of Southern California IRB for approval. I was
obligated to do no harm to the participants in the study, including harm related to safety, dignity,
or privacy (Glesne, 2011). Subjects were encouraged to participate in the Zoom interview from a
private and safe location of their choosing. To protect dignity, participants could refuse to answer
any question and have control over ending the interview at any time. Participants gave
permission for the interview recording to occur. Participants engaged in informed consent

53
procedures that ensured voluntary participation, indicated potential risks and benefits of
participation, and ascertained the right to end study participation at any time (Glesne, 2011). To
maximize privacy, study documents (e.g., transcripts and researcher notes) were deidentified and
password protected to ensure anonymity and limit risk for uncredentialed access (Glesne, 2011).
I had sole access to the recording link in a password protected Zoom account that was only
shared with the participant if requested. Data was de-identified to limit the ability to attach
specific experiences with certain participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As the primary
researcher, I also engaged in monitoring and reflection related to study protocols and conducted
member checks to ensure the anonymity was adequate within documents intended for public
dissemination (Glesne, 2011; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Finally, attention to Patton’s “Ethical
Issues Checklist” ensured all aspects of the qualitative research process were trustworthy
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 264). Each of these procedures helped to ensure that the
participants incurred no harm.

54
Chapter Four: Findings
This chapter provides the analysis of research findings. The purpose of the study was to
understand the experience of belonging for full-time hybrid physical therapy faculty as well as
the supports and barriers for belonging. Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) ecological systems theory
grounded the study design. Qualitative data were collected from 15 participants through semistructured interviews to answer the two research questions:
1. What is the experience of belonging for full-time hybrid physical therapy faculty?
2. What are the supports and barriers for belonging for full-time hybrid physical therapy
faculty?
Numerous themes emerged from the participant interviews centering around belonging as an
experience that was rooted in care and connection as humans, required considerable effort and
intention, and evolved and changed with time. Supports and barriers to belonging spanned across
Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) socio-ecological levels of microsystem and mesosystem, including
personal factors, interpersonal relationships, and organizational factors. The sections that follow
describe the participants and their organizations, their experience of belonging in the hybrid
setting, and the supporting and inhibiting factors that influenced their belonging experience.
Each research question is presented along with the corresponding themes and subthemes.
Participants
Fifteen participants met the inclusion criteria of full-time hybrid physical therapy faculty
in a CAPTE-accredited or candidate for accreditation DPT program with hybrid curriculum
delivery, at least 1 year of experience in their current role, and teaching responsibilities largely
performed from a geographic distance from campus. The years of experience as full-time hybrid
educator ranged from 1 to 6 years and years of experience in DPT education ranged from 1 year

55
to 21 years. Nine participants earned terminal academic degrees (i.e., PhD, EdD, DSc or
equivalent); the other six earned American Board of Physical Therapy Specialty (ABPTS)
certification. Four participants were male and eleven were female. Two participants selfidentified as faculty of under-represented backgrounds, including Black and Latin-x. Participants
were employed at ten different academic institutions in the United States with five in a hybridonly curricular model and 10 in a dual-pathway curricular model with both hybrid and face-toface-only models. Each participant’s response to the question “How important is belonging at
work to you?” provides additional context to their unique presentation at the time of the study.
Table 2 summarizes important participant factors, including their current DPT program’s
curricular model, their years of experience as physical therapists and in DPT education, and their
perceived importance of belonging at work. Given the small number of accredited and candidatefor-accreditation DPT programs with hybrid curricula at the time of the interviews, protection of
anonymity of the subjects was critical. Therefore, I limited potentially identifying information in
the descriptions and identified participants using numbers (i.e. P1) and gender-neutral pronouns.
Similarly, institutions are identified using “university” regardless of size and formal title to
further protect participants’ identity.

56
Table 2
Participant Overview
Identifier DPT program
curriculum
Participant
description
Importance of belonging
P1 Hybrid-only Mid-career;
< 5 years as fulltime core DPT
faculty
“I think it’s probably one of the most
essential parts of employment. It
definitely provides you with a purpose
and motivation and interest when you do
feel a part of something.”
P2 Dual hybrid
and residential
Late career;
> 5 years as fulltime core DPT
faculty
“It’s very important to me. Like 0 to 10, I
would say a 9, with 10 being the most
important thing … and I definitely feel
the need [to belong] more being remote
than I did residential.”
P3 Dual hybrid
and residential
Late career;
> 5 years as fulltime core DPT
faculty
“It’s important … I mean, it is, and it isn’t
… I certainly prefer to have a sense of
belonging over not having one … [but]
I’ve been very successful and happy not
feeling [belonging] in every aspect.”
P4 Dual hybrid
and residential
Late career;
> 5 years as fulltime core DPT
faculty
“It is [important]. Having been at [multiple]
institutions, we know academia is not
easy and we know the structures that are
there to support PT faculty don’t always
do that. I’ve had quite a journey.”
P5 Dual hybrid
and residential
Early career;
< 5 years as fulltime core DPT
faculty
“While it’s important, it’s not as high of a
priority if I want to be completely honest
… it’s still on the list of things that are
important and I do believe that if I didn’t
feel it at all in my current role, I wouldn’t
stay in it for much longer.”
P6 Hybrid-only Mid-career;
< 5 years as fulltime core DPT
faculty
“I think workplace belonging is very
important. It’s where we spend a majority
of our days and if you didn’t have
workplace belonging, I think I would feel
very much alone.”

57
Identifier DPT program
curriculum
Participant
description
Importance of belonging
P7 Hybrid-only Late career;
> 5 years as
full-time core
DPT faculty
“I’ve always said, culture is the reason we do
what we do ... and I think belonging, the
sense of belonging and finding ways to have
fun which are all kind of interrelated, is part
of that. If I don’t feel like I fit in one way or
the other, it’s probably not going to be an
enjoyable [work] experience.”
P8 Hybrid-only Late career;
> 5 years as
full-time core
DPT faculty
“Within my program, I think it’s important that
I feel connected to those folks, and they
similarly feel connected to me.”
P9 Hybrid-only Late career;
< 5 years as
full-time core
DPT faculty
“To me, it’s very important. It’s actually how I
made my decision as far as which institution
I chose [employment] based on two areas I
really valued: one was my family … and the
second one was what is the culture and
[what does the] dynamic look like amongst
the other faculty and staff members?”
P10 Hybrid-only Late career;
> 5 years as
full-time core
DPT faculty
“Through my time in academia, it’s probably
less important. I think maybe as a newer
faculty member, it was important … but
being in this hybrid role, I have a good
sense of what the program needs, what
students need, and what I need to make it
work.”
P11 Hybrid-only Early career;
< 5 years as
full-time core
DPT faculty
“I would rate it pretty high because hybrid
makes it harder to feel like you belong
sometimes … it’s a different, a completely
different, environment and you kind of work
to feel like you belong.”
P12 Hybrid-only Early career;
< 5 years as
full-time core
DPT faculty
“It’s gotten more important to me as I’ve
gotten older and more established in my
career … I want a workplace home,
somewhere to be after a longer period of
time.”

58
Identifier DPT program
curriculum
Participant
description
Importance of belonging
P13 Dual hybrid and
residential
Mid-career;
< 5 years as
full-time core
DPT faculty
“Pretty important. I think it’s a big quality of
life issue. We spend so much time at work,
so I want to feel valued. I want to feel
included.”
P14 Hybrid-only Mid-career;
> 5 years as
full-time core
DPT faculty
“It means more than I ever thought it would for
a job, because I don’t think anyone tells
you, ‘Find a job where you belong’ … but
it’s critical. I don’t want to be part of an
institution where I don’t feel that I belong.”
P15 Hybrid-only Late career;
> 5 years as
full-time core
DPT faculty
“I have to be able to really, deeply interact
with the people that I’m in contact with
every day.”
Note. Participant description defined as early career: < 10 years in field; mid-career in the field:
11-19 years in the field; late career: > 20 years in the field
During the interviews, six themes emerged from the participants’ experiences of
belonging. The themes were described by at least 12 of the participants. Within each theme,
multiple sub-themes arose. Creation of sub-themes occurred when a minimum of five of the
participants described the experience or factor. A summary of the themes and sub-themes for
each research question are provided in Table 3 and Table 4, respectively.
Findings for Research Question 1
Research Question 1 explored, “What is the experience of belonging for full-time, hybrid
physical therapy faculty?” Connection anchored the experience of belonging for full-time, hybrid
physical therapy faculty members. Faculty described belonging as feeling part of a community
with a shared purpose. Belonging emerged from deep interactions with colleagues as a whole
person, not just professional. Technology provided a window to view and understand the whole

59
person. Belonging in the hybrid environment required significant effort to engage in shared
experiences, both in-person and online. The experience of belonging developed and changed
with time especially given the academic cycle and duration of program. Table 3 provides the
overarching themes and subthemes for Research Question 1.
Table 3
Themes for Research Question 1: The Experience of Belonging
Theme Subtheme
Sense of belonging occurs
through connection and
care as humans.
Connecting with colleagues as humans
Interacting with care and authenticity
Meaningful connection
requires intention and
effort, both online and inperson.
Connecting through deliberate use of technology when
remote
Effortful in-person socializing at on-site immersions
Experience of belonging
develops and changes with
time.
Develops through new and old connections
Changes with academic cycles and program maturation
Theme 1: Belonging Occurs through Connection and Care as Humans
Hybrid faculty belonging was an experience rooted in connection with colleagues.
Relationships, even friendships, developed through understanding one another on a level deeper
than mere colleagues with work interests; faculty connected on a personal and human level.
Person-centered interactions anchored in care for others and authenticity created belonging.
Technology was a tool utilized to relate and connect with others as a whole person, not just a coworker.
Connecting with Colleagues as Humans
Connection was the defining characteristic of belonging for hybrid faculty. Ten
participants defined belonging as feeling connection, community, and part of something bigger

60
than themselves. P1 described, “It’s really this feeling of connectedness, of fellowship, or that
you have this community that you are a part of … you don’t feel like an outsider.” Participants
described connection across levels of the work environment, including departmental colleagues,
peers within the university, and students, as part of their belonging definition. Connection was
not superficial; participants described connecting at a deep level that created trust and feeling
safe. P15 shared, “[Sense of belonging] means I feel very [emphasis added] comfortable
interacting with all of the people I need to interact with: the people above me, below me, my
students, and other colleagues in other parts of the institution.” Finally, belonging involved
connection to achieve a common goal. P9 said, “It means that you identify with the place in
which you’re working or learning and with the people around you … you feel psychologically
safe … and you’re working towards a unified purpose.” Connection was the underpinning of
belonging for faculty from which they built deeper relationships.
Hybrid faculty experienced belonging through meaningful connection and relationships
with colleagues beyond work duties. Thirteen participants described knowing colleagues on a
personal level. Faculty built connection with others through understanding life roles, such as
parent or animal-lover, as well as personal interests and hobbies. P6 explained needing to
“demonstrate that you’re not just this hybrid worker by sharing about yourself in some ways to
be known as a person and what you like.” Personal connections outside of physical therapy
education resulted in developing deeper relationships and friendships, including spending time
together enjoying hobbies or taking trips. P7 shared, “Last year, I spent a week with one of my
colleagues … just hanging out. Went to a music concert, toured the area which I had never been
to, and did a bunch of hiking adventures.” Personal connection created warmth and depth in
relationships, as well as strong bonds. In this way, P11 described “I was teaching in [immersion]

61
lab and one of my coworkers ran up in the middle and just hugged me because she just got there,
just flew in.” Belonging at a human level emerged from knowing colleagues as a whole person
through non-work roles and interests.
Human connection between colleagues extended from routine everyday activities to
deeply personal matters. Twelve participants recalled informal conversations about everyday
events and people creating belonging. Hybrid faculty regularly talked with co-workers about
family members, food or drink recommendations, and workout routines. P2 explained,
“[Belonging] is just being part of the everyday activities. Knowing people and having people
know me.” P5 said, “More informally, [belonging] means having a few friends, a few colleagues
that would chat about various personal aspects of life, ask about family or how your day was
going.” One participant described how their teaching debrief meetings included life updates. In
addition to sharing everyday experiences, seven participants described the belonging connection
formed through experiencing life’s ups and downs with colleagues. This included celebrating
birthdays and anniversaries: “When I walked into the main department one day [during
immersion], they had a birthday celebration with a cake and had surprised me … and it was
really thoughtful that they considered when I would be there” (P13). Participants also described
supporting one another through major life events, including sick pets, cancer diagnoses, death of
loved ones, and divorce. P7 shared,
I had an unexpected death in the family just a month ago… the outpouring of thoughts
and calls and messages is powerful and immediately makes you realize that even if there
is a distance between us, it’s no different than if we all [physically] worked in the same
office.

62
Connection at a human level meant understanding colleagues personally and sharing in their joys
and sorrows related to life, not simply work accomplishments.
Technology provided a lens for hybrid faculty to better understand their colleagues as a
whole person. Five participants described peer exposure to aspects of their personal life in the
background of video conference screens. Pets, family members, art, college paraphernalia, and
exercise equipment on the screen helped faculty view a different side of one another. Observing
the whole person was valued by co-workers, as opposed to something to hide. P14 said, “If my
kids are home sick and they come into the room [when] I’m on a call and interrupt me, I don’t
feel like I have to shoo them away. They’re welcomed in that space.” The ability to see multiple
life roles outside of work enabled connection through shared values, hobbies, and interests that
may not have otherwise been apparent. One participant shared the experience of buying new
exercise equipment after asking a colleague about a bike in their Zoom background. They said,
“Now we follow each other on the Peloton. … So, it’s nice to connect on more levels than just,
‘what are you teaching?’” (P12). Thus, hybrid work technology supported belonging through
direct observation of one’s roles and interests outside of work alone.
Interacting with Care and Authenticity
Interactions rooted in affective concern created belonging at a human level. Thirteen of
15 hybrid faculty described belonging through genuine care for the people that they worked with.
This stemmed from a desire to develop partnerships with coworkers as opposed to the formality
of a formal work relationship. For example, P7 described helping a coworker approaching
burnout to be more accountable to self-care during the day through check-in texts. They said,
“We reach out to each other often. I ask them if they’ve walked their dog … they make sure I’m
getting to the gym … so we’re connecting on a level above PT for each other’s well-being” (P7).

63
In addition to personal well-being, care for others included being a good team member. Faculty
described the importance of doing their part by helping with teaching when a colleague was sick
or unexpectedly short staffed. One participant shared, “I try to jump in and help whenever I can
… like a 7am proctoring session. I’ll say, ‘Let me take that for you’ and they’re like, ‘Do you
mean it? Really?!’” (P4). Pitching in and helping out reinforced connection for belonging, as did
expressing appreciation. P15 shared, “I will look for any chance for us to come together and talk
about how to appreciate each other.” Care and concern formed the root of the faculty
relationships.
Authenticity was another characteristic of human-level work interactions that created
belonging. Eight participants equated authenticity at work to belonging. Hybrid faculty described
bringing out unique aspects of their personality during interactions with colleagues. P10 shared,
“A huge part of sense of belonging is that I can really be my genuine self. I can be really
authentic … and I know there’s no judgment.” Faculty felt valued and part of the team when
aspects of their personality were known and recognized by others, especially in a virtual setting.
For example, P8 described how program leadership and peers appreciated their sarcasm during
faculty meetings:
I’m a very sarcastic person … so Zoom has been great for me because I can just throw
sarcastic comments in the chat all the time. And my program directors have both said it’s
super helpful when there’s a tense conversation … because everyone cracks up and it
defuses the situation a bit.
More than just a sense of humor, another faculty described being known for the optimism they
bring to challenging situations. After P15 made a contribution during a virtual faculty meeting, a
colleague followed up in the chat field to acknowledge the comments: “One of the faculty said

64
‘Thanks for that reflection. It was right on brand’… [As in] it’s so ‘me’ to do something like
that” (P15). The faculty felt belonging in appreciation and acknowledgement for their authentic
contribution to the group. Bringing out one’s authentic self at work was an important part of
interactions for belonging.
The nature of a hybrid work position further supported authenticity at work. Nine faculty
described that the work-life balance of a hybrid position enabled their work authenticity. Faculty
described that the hybrid position allowed them to more fully participate in multiple life roles,
especially that of parent, while also being in a more pleasing work environment. P11 shared, “It
makes me more comfortable to be at home, and I’m more me [emphasis added] when I’m at
home, and more confident in my interactions.” In addition to confidence, faculty described the
personal well-being and mental health benefits that working from home provided. Seven
participants mentioned taking breaks to exercise or going outside more than they did in former
work positions. Breaks from work helped to reduced stress and support more authentic
engagement with others for belonging at work. For example, P8 shared, “It’s the separation. The
ability to get totally out of where I’m [home working] and then come back in[side] again … that
allows me to engage [at work] more.” The flexible aspects of hybrid work helped faculty to
interact in more caring and authentic manner with colleagues.
Human connections also fostered a work environment of understanding and humility. Six
participants described that knowing one another deeply enabled them to give grace instead of
rushing to judgment. Belonging created a willingness to show humility amidst work-related
challenges. P12 said, “People have reasons why they are how they are and so when you … get to
know someone and are intentional about getting to know people, you understand that a lot of
things that people do aren’t personal.” Deeper connection with colleagues meant that work

65
conflict could be viewed from multiple angles and helped colleagues move forward. In this way,
P14 said that belonging relationships prevent “quick judgments of people and forgetting that
we’re all here for the same purpose. We’re good intended people.” Greater personal
understanding within faculty relationships supported faculty work and department relations, as
well as interactions anchored in care and authenticity.
The experience of hybrid faculty belonging was rooted in connection as humans. Deeper
relationships were formed based on personal life roles and interests. Technology supported
understanding the whole person outside of a work role by enabling observation of other life roles
and the home environment. Authentic and caring interactions fostered human connection.
Human connection did not happen organically, however, and deliberate attention and thought
were needed to create deeper relationships.
Theme 2: Meaningful Connection Requires Intention and Effort both Online and InPerson
Participants described considerable intentionality and effort to develop belonging
connections in the hybrid environment. During remote periods of work, faculty deliberately used
multiple modes of communication to foster connection and overcome geographic distance.
During periods of on-site work, faculty engaged in both formal and informal connection building
through teaching and after-hours socializing. Whether remote or on-site, faculty engaged in
purposeful strategies to deepen relationships with colleagues for belonging.
Connecting through Deliberate Use of Technology when Remote
When geographically separated, belonging required faculty effort and thought. Fourteen
participants shared ways in which they were proactive and intentional in using technology to
facilitate connections. New strategies included scheduling time in their calendar for a virtual

66
meeting when in the past an email sufficed or including time in a meeting agenda for small talk.
These actions were necessary because of limited opportunities for casual or spontaneous
interactions. P10 said, “You have to really master deliberate and purposeful communication [to
belong] and … be a little bit more of a planner to have some of those ad hoc conversations.”
Spontaneity was less possible online and so connection required work. Planned activities
included signing in regularly for virtual walks or water cooler chats, participating in virtual
independent work sessions in a Zoom room with colleagues and meeting people virtually with a
“get to know you” purpose as opposed to a specific work task. P3 shared, “It took me a while to
learn to be more proactive about scheduling meetings just to meet people … and help me get to
know these people better.” Establishing feelings of belonging required scheduling formal time
for virtual connection.
Hybrid faculty described communication beyond email as essential to their belonging
experience. Fourteen participants described texting as a frequent means of communication for
belonging. Participants used both group and individual texts to communicate emergent workrelated issues, as well as to check in about family life, send congratulations for a publication,
touch base during concerning weather events, or share a hobby or workout. P15 said, “Any
chance in between our [immersions] that we have, we text. You know your phone’s gonna blow
up because it’s ‘happy birthday’ … or a funny video … and we keep in touch with each other
that way.” Similar to texting, software platforms like Microsoft Teams enabled faculty to quickly
reach out to touch base or ask questions. Other participants described calling people instead of
sending an email to connect in real-time. P13 said, “I have started just picking up the phone and
calling people so we can have that conversation. To me, it’s like that conversation when you
catch somebody in the hallway.” Deliberate communication strategies outside of email

67
characterized the hybrid faculty belonging experience when remote or separated in an effort to
mirror the real-time communication afforded by in-person work environments.
Effortful In-Person Socializing at On-Site Immersions
On-site laboratory teaching in immersions created an environment ripe for social
connection. All fifteen participants described the lab immersions as a highlight of their belonging
experience. Participants compared immersions to a second home or summer camp that they
looked forward to attending. P7’s face lit up as they said, “When it comes to being on-site, it is
such an opportunity for connecting, and socializing, and getting to know each other at a level that
… builds a sense of belonging.” Similarly, P11 shared that the immersion experience “renews
my sense of belonging every time I have one.” Immersions brought faculty together to teach and
work together toward the common goal of supporting students. P9 said, “We thrive on the
interaction when we’re all together at lab.” After teaching, belonging was fostered by time spent
socializing at restaurants, engaging in exercise, taking walks, playing pool at the hotel, or
gathering around the hotel firepit to have fun together. P12 explained that without the demands
of home responsibilities, faculty can “really get to know your colleagues in a way that, when
you’re in person, you don’t have that many opportunities to.” In-person immersions created
critical opportunities for faculty to interact and create social bonds for belonging that extended to
when they were remote.
The rigorous teaching schedule of laboratory immersions required faculty to commit
limited energy to social activities for belonging. Seven participants referenced the significant
effort required to engage with colleagues after-hours. P7 shared, “[Immersion] lends itself to
belonging as long as people invest in that belonging environment.” P1 concurred saying, it “takes
active participation and work.” Investing in belonging meant prioritizing relationship-building at

68
the end of very long teaching days. Six participants reported weighing the trade-offs between
participating in after-class socializing against personal well-being needs. Faculty described
forcing themselves and pushing through exhaustion to make time to participate in group lunches,
go out for drinks, or attend evening events. P12 said that in the beginning stage of their hybrid
program, “We almost tried too much to create a sense of community” during immersions by
expecting people to go out and socialize. Since then, the faculty has been better about
recognizing individual needs for rest versus socializing to better support personal well-being.
The intention and effort required to foster deep relationships with colleagues both in-person and
online was apparent in participant belonging experiences.
Despite the positive opportunities for connection and socializing during immersion
experienced by faculty, one participant also described an experience detracting from their
belonging at immersion. This negative case occurred with after-hours socializing in a dualpathway model, where some faculty work on-site full time and other faculty work part-on-site
and part-remotely. In this participant’s experience, faculty who lived locally often did not
participate in social activities during immersion with faculty who were in town from a distance.
P4 shared:
When I’m on campus, there’s another remote faculty member that we go out and have
dinner together because we’re both here from out of state. Everybody else just goes
home. Nobody else wants to stay. So, I’m not sure I really get much of a sense of
belonging from [that].
In this situation, belonging challenges occurred because interaction to feel like part of the entire
department community was missing. Thus, the limited opportunity for bonding with the larger
group of faculty was detrimental to belonging for a dual-pathway faculty member.

69
Belonging for hybrid faculty required intention and effort to establish meaningful
connection. Faculty utilized strategies to support relationship-building during remote and on-site
interactions. Use of multiple modes of communication that minimized email when remote, as
well as engaging in social activities after teaching on-site, were primary ways faculty
experienced belonging. Regardless of the effort exerted to belong in a hybrid role, the belonging
experience evolves and changes with time.
Theme 3: Belonging Develops and Changes with Time
The experience of belonging developed over time for hybrid faculty. Participants
described a sense of belonging that grew from new and prior connections with colleagues. The
academic cycle created high and low points for belonging, as did the length of time the program
had been established. Faculty in dual-delivery models experienced improved belonging with
time, whereas some faculty in new hybrid-delivery models felt the opposite.
Belonging Develops through Old and New Connections
Existing connections with departmental colleagues fostered the early sense of belonging
of faculty in their hybrid positions. Eight faculty described prior relationships with program
leadership that created a level of comfort and support for hybrid faculty to feel a sense of
belonging from the start of their positions. P14 explained,
Once I find my people and I realize how they build me up as a person, it influences how I
feel [belonging] … I have followed this [program director] pretty much everywhere …
[they] taught me, and then [they] went to [university] and I went to [same university].
Prior connections created an instant support network. In addition to program leadership, faculty
also described prior connections with colleagues who were PT school classmates, former PT
students, college roommates, and former adjuncts. P12 shared, “I’ve known [colleague] since

70
2011, so for a long time. That helps [belonging] a lot because I know [them]. I work with [them].
I don’t think I would have come on board if I didn’t or if I didn’t like working with [them].”
Existing relationships provided a level of informality for reaching out with questions, asking for
advice, or needing to vent after a hard day at work. Existing relationships provided a fast
connection for belonging within a new hybrid academic role, but developing new relationships
was also needed for belonging.
New relationships grew from shared experiences, such as working on small teams
together with shared goals. Eleven of fifteen participants described relationships on teaching,
clinical education, and service-related teams, like admissions, which instilled a positive sense of
belonging. P3 shared, “I have my own little [teaching] team … They really enjoy what they’re
doing. I see them get excited about things and we get excited about the same things and that’s a
huge part of [belonging].” Similarly, P10’s co-teaching relationship supported belonging by
“talking multiple times a day and multiple times at night … That’s the belonging- your sense of
ownership to this person because the two of you are keeping each other afloat.” Eight faculty
attributed the development of new hybrid curricula on small teams with their positive belonging
experience. The early phases of program development were characterized by smaller faculty size,
demanding workloads, and long hours. P9 described the close attachments formed during
program development as “a family feel with everyone on the faculty and staff.” Faculty were
connected in their new roles by working with colleagues toward program-related goals.
Connections and relationships also grew from similar identities and life experiences with
others on faculty. Six faculty described bonding with colleagues who were similar to them in
terms of identity, career phase, or time of onboarding within the program. P15 shared:

71
I’m very aware that I’m often the [emphasis added] person. Coming to a faculty where
there is a lot of diversity, it just feels like I belong because we’re all different. I don’t feel
like I’m the only one that’s different … The more diversity there is, the more belonging
you can feel because there’s somebody like you.
Multiple faculty described finding commonalities and similarities. P3 described joking and
venting with one colleague “more than with other faculty because she knows I have [similar
level of academic] experience.” Similarly, P4 shared that “She and I started at the same time. …
She was totally thrown into things like I was, and it’s so hard the first year. We’re about the
same age and I felt a sense of connection to her immediately.” Forming new connections and
relating with colleagues was possible through shared identities and experiences.
Belonging Changes with Academic Cycles and Program Maturation
Hybrid faculty described a belonging experience that changed with the demands of the
academic calendar. Eight faculty shared work stresses associated with academic cycles that
impacted belonging. As faculty shifted between teaching, service, and research priorities at
different times of the year, their sense of belonging changed. P1 said, “The biggest barrier to
belonging is when the workload gets increased, people are busy teaching, and there isn’t as much
cross-communication as there could be to function at an optimal level [of belonging].” P6
described the challenge of multiple role priorities including teaching and clinical education,
during a busy immersion week: “It just complicates my [belonging] continuity in my [multiple]
roles.” Another challenge related to curricular model type. P10 shared:
It really lies in being in the accelerated model. A term ends or a lab ends, and you might
be on campus … on a Saturday and it’s still a day of travel home. And then you’re

72
starting another class on Monday. There’s no time off, so you can’t belong to anything
because you belong to the students, and you’ve got to do the next class.
Yet faculty also described high points within the academic year for belonging. Events like white
coat ceremonies, pledge ceremonies, graduation, immersions, or faculty retreats fostered
belonging. The academic cycle created natural changes in the belonging experience for hybrid
faculty.
The experience of belonging for hybrid faculty also changed with program maturation.
Seven faculty described peaks and valleys in belonging as the hybrid program or pathway
became more established. Many participants in new hybrid-only curricular models felt that
belonging decreased over time. This was attributable to shifting responsibilities from program
development to program implementation, as well as hiring more faculty which decreased
interaction frequency and depth. P10 explained, “I felt a greater sense of belonging earlier on
than in this last year of teaching because I’m so in the weeds of the work that needs to be done,
like course building, recording and developing everything from scratch.” Conversely, faculty in
dual-pathway curricular models found belonging improved with time. P2 shared,
There’s comfort or power in numbers. I started off solo, the only person in this role that
wasn’t right there [on campus], and now there are four of us. So, there’s more relating not
only within our group, but there’s a sense within our residential, on-campus folks that we
do have a larger crew.
Time’s impact on belonging also applied to the duration of the faculty member’s position within
the department. P3 explained that belonging takes time: “You’re not there all the time and it
takes a while … to meet everybody and to get to know everybody.” The experience of belonging
for hybrid faculty ebbs and flows with time.

73
Belonging for hybrid faculty develops and changes with time. Prior relationships and new
connections characterize the experience of belonging. Shared identities and life experiences
create new connections. The academic cycle influences hybrid faculty job responsibilities and
demands, thus impacting belonging. Program maturation, both for all-hybrid and dual-delivery
program models, results in an evolution of belonging for faculty.
Summary of Findings for Research Question 1
Hybrid physical therapy faculty sense of belonging grew through deep rooted connection
with colleagues as humans. Human connection developed with friendship and personal
connections through routine daily events and life’s celebrations and challenges. Care and
authenticity further grounded connections among colleagues. Deep understanding fostered a tone
of acceptance and humility among faculty. Technology further supported connection as a
window into personal and family life. Connection required intention and effort to interact in
remote and in-person environments. Participating in social activities during immersion were
especially important to establishing deeper bonds with coworkers. Technology enabled multiple
channels of communication, especially texting, which fostered connection for remote belonging.
Relationships with colleagues developed and changed with time which made the feeling of
belonging ebb and flow. Prior physical therapy connections enabled a fast-track to feeling
support and belonging in hybrid positions, while new connections formed more slowly through
shared goals, especially on small work teams, and shared identities. The academic cycle and
years of program maturation also influenced the nature of belonging for faculty.
Findings for Research Question 2
The second research question explored “What are the supports and barriers to belonging
for full-time hybrid physical therapy faculty?” Emergent themes centered around three areas:

74
personal factors, interpersonal relationships, and organizational factors. More specifically, hybrid
faculty personal characteristics, such as their values, priorities, behaviors, and personality,
influenced belonging in supportive and detrimental ways. Secondly, interpersonal relationships
within the physical therapy department workplace, specifically relationships with department
leaders (i.e., program directors), peers, and students, impacted faculty perceptions of belonging.
Respect, trust, recognition, value, and accessibility were each factors contributing to or
interfering with belonging in interpersonal relationships. Finally, organizational factors related to
culture and structure influenced belonging. These organizational factors spanned from the
immediate environment of the physical therapy department through the broader educational
institution. Table 4 summarizes the themes and subthemes for Research Question 2.
Table 4
Themes for Research Question 2: Supports and Barriers of Sense of Belonging
Themes Subthemes
Personal factors influence belonging. Values and priorities
Communication strategies
Personality characteristics
Interpersonal relationships influence belonging. Collegiality
Accessibility
Organizational factors influence belonging. Organizational culture
Organizational structure
Theme 1: Personal Factors Influence Belonging
Personal factors played a role in hybrid faculty experience of belonging. Thirteen faculty
perceived belonging as important, which influenced their daily workflow and activities to be
more people-focused. Communication behaviors, such as being person-centered, and selfadvocacy were also factor in the belonging experience. Personality characteristics, such as being

75
a self-described introvert or extravert, was another factor contributing to belonging. These
characteristics were at times supports and other times barriers to the hybrid faculty member’s
experience of belonging.
Hybrid Faculty Values and Priorities
Hybrid faculty regarded belonging as an important component of their work experience.
Thirteen of fifteen participants described belonging at work as important or very important.
Feeling belonging was credited as the reason participants accepted employment and stayed in
their current position. P14 said, “It means more than I ever thought it would for a job because I
don’t think anyone tells you ‘Find a job where you belong’ … but it’s critical.” Faculty described
that belonging mattered to them even more in the hybrid setting than it did in the residential
setting. P11 shared, “I would rate [belonging] pretty high because hybrid makes it harder to feel
like you belong sometimes … it's a different, a completely different, environment and you kind
of work to feel like you belong.” Belonging’s importance was attributed to faculty quality of life
and personal well-being due to the number hours each day spent working. For example, P13
stated, “As I’m becoming more established in my career, I want a workplace home. Somewhere
to be after a longer period of [career] time.” Belonging was valued within the hybrid faculty
member’s job experience.
Given the importance of belonging for faculty, some expressed initial belonging concerns
upon accepting a hybrid position. Four participants described emotions, such as being afraid or
nervous about their hybrid faculty role due to perceived challenges to interaction and connection
in hybrid settings. These concerns related to the differences between hybrid and clinical work
settings; clinic work involves nearly constant interactions with coworkers and patients
throughout each day. P5 said, “I have to say, I was nervous about the role. I’m such a social

76
person, and as a PT, you’re used to being in clinic with 10,000 people and physically touching
people all day.” Participants described fewer opportunities for connection and creating
partnerships in academia compared to working with so many different patients in clinic each day.
As P12 shared, “We’re home alone all day, and I’m a social person. So, for me, I thought this
[hybrid role] was going to be really challenging.” Yet, all four faculty suggested their fears were
largely unwarranted, as demonstrated by P11: “The group I have around me has really flipped
that [fear] for me and made me realize that it’s almost easier in a hybrid program to feel like I
belong because they’re only a Zoom call away.” The importance of belonging for faculty lead to
early belonging concerns that lessoned once in the role.
Valuing belonging influenced the ways in which faculty engaged in their daily work.
Seven participants described the need to prioritize people and relationships despite the many
other demands of an academic faculty position. Busy work schedules meant naturally passing
over opportunities for connection for other more pressing demands. P9 shared, “I get really task
oriented. It’s always just trying to get the next thing done and done well. … I need to get better at
building community in others … and focus on others” within the workflow. Participants also
described the importance of reflecting on personal work tendencies to support belonging. P14
shared,
If I don’t keep that [belonging] priority, I don’t respond well to work stressors and I feel
more isolated. … If I don’t have it on the schedule, and it sounds super cheesy, but the
coffee chat or the walks… it won’t happen unless the meeting goes over or is short.
Balancing belonging behaviors along with other more transactional, routine work tasks was
necessary. When asked for advice that participants would give to new hybrid faculty, participants
suggested taking advantage of any opportunities to engage in committee work, research, student

77
events, community service, and informal socializing to forge new and meaningful connections.
More travel on-site also had important potential to support belonging. P1 shared, “If you want to
feel a part of something, you have to be part of it. That only comes by stepping up [and] raising
your hand.” Faculty attention to pro-belonging behaviors, such as getting involved, traveling to
campus, and reflecting on work priorities, were supports for feeling belonging at work.
Pro-belonging behaviors also had the potential to create barriers to feeling belonging.
While some faculty described consciously engaging with colleagues, other faculty described
needing to carefully set work boundaries. Five participants noted the potential for blurred lines
between work and home life. P6 shared that an important skill for new hybrid faculty is: “Setting
clear boundaries, so that you maintain healthy work-life balance because it’s too easy to just
think that we can always respond on a device.” P8 echoed similar sentiments about being careful
not to “over-belong… because you are less likely to have physical separation between your work
and your life” in hybrid positions. Although participating in meetings and committees was
suggested to help belonging, P3 cautioned about “making sure that those are things you really
want to do because sitting in Zoom meetings for stuff you don’t want to do as much … is worse”
when in a remote role. Faculty warned against the slippery slope toward over-committal that was
relatively invisible to other faculty within the department due to the remote environment. Faculty
used words like “isolating” to describe the consequences of long work hours and overcommitting in the hybrid workspace. The implementation of strategies to manage academic work
demands and priorities was necessary. Thus, the perceived value for belonging was a support to
forging connections and prioritizing people within their work tasks, but also a barrier to
belonging when it led to excessive work demands that limited life-work balance.

78
Hybrid Faculty Communication Strategies
Communication strategies were another personal factor influencing belonging in positive
and negative ways for hybrid faculty. More specifically, person-centered communication
supported feeling belonging and connection with others. Nine faculty described the ways in
which they add a personal dimension into work communication. P9 said, “In communication at
work, [I] really do try to make it really personal, really caring, and compassionate.” Participants
opened online meetings with time to catch up about personal life instead of jumping right into an
agenda. Two faculty described carefully writing emails, such as “I can never send an email that’s
just business. … [I] put some personal stuff in there” (P15). Making time for person-first
connection included initiating private chats in Zoom meetings or reaching out through texts and
phone calls to connect on a personal level. P1 kept a person-centered approach through “being
present in whatever communication you’re having, whether it’s in-person or remote … and
tak[ing] the time … recognizing what’s going on in [others’] environment.” To be personcentered, faculty needed to be observant and focused within their interactions. A sense of
belonging for hybrid faculty was supported when communication demonstrated person-centered
interest.
In addition to person-centered communication, speaking up and advocating for oneself
was essential for belonging to develop. Eight faculty described “just reaching out” and making
contact supported the feeling of belonging. No matter how big or small the question or idea,
tapping others supported the bonding needed for belonging. P3 said, “Reach out to your
colleagues … look for reasons to connect with people virtually on a regular basis.” In addition to
connecting, speaking up also involved sharing feelings, needs, and experiences. P10 said, “I
could do a better job communicating more so about what my needs are, as far as ‘this is an

79
important topic, and we should really meet about it’.” In addition to expressing needs, openly
sharing the current reality of their work demands was also necessary. Transparency was critical
because of the lack of faculty visibility in remote settings. P11 mentioned, “No one knew that I
was up until 4am some nights recording videos … You don’t see what other people are going
through behind the screen … which [can cause] belonging to seep out and leak.” Thus, reaching
out and speaking up about one’s experience and needs was important.
Advocating for oneself was not easy. Six faculty described needing to qualm their
feelings of independence, imposter syndrome, and being a bother in order to just say hello,
request a meeting, or ask for help when remote. Speaking up was an adjustment, described as a
big learning curve, to leverage colleagues and program leadership for support instead of
struggling on their own. Advocating communication strategies were uncomfortable for faculty,
as they used words like being “a squeaky wheel” (P2) and “putting myself out on a limb” (P11).
Three faculty mentioned stepping outside of one’s comfort zone as advice they would give to a
new hybrid faculty member to feel belonging. P13 said:
You need to make yourself available and put yourself in places and positions to interact
with people. I don’t think you can expect other people to come to you all the time. And so
if you’re not feeling belongingness, then I think you need to jump in and say, ‘What can I
be a part of? Who is going out to lunch? Where’s the coffee machine? Where does
everybody usually stand around?’ And put yourself out there so that you can make some
of those connections.
Initiating communication and forging contact with others within the department was an
important element of communication to support belonging.

80
As noted, communication and self-advocacy were critical to supporting a sense of
belonging for hybrid faculty. Particularly in the hybrid setting, technology supported aspects of
communication, but at times it interfered with person-centered communication. Nine faculty
described aspects of technology that were a barrier to connection in communication with
colleagues. Video conferencing challenges were most frequently mentioned, including difficulty
interpreting body language, time lags impacting conversation flow, fewer casual interactions, and
students not using video cameras in meetings or class. For example, P8 said belonging was
hindered by “the one-sidedness of Zoom communication… [it] limits the ability to interact with a
normal conversation around any topic.” Similarly, P7 shared,
In a hybrid sense, you can’t fully read people [online] to the best of your ability, so it
leaves things up to interpretation. I do feel like it happens … more than I would like,
where people make judgments based off messages or tones of messages … that can start
to create ripples in the bonds that are there.
Technology impacted the capacity for person-centered communication needed for belonging of
hybrid faculty.
Hybrid Faculty Personality Characteristics
Personality played a role in how faculty experienced belonging. Eight faculty described
personality traits that needed awareness and action in order to feel belonging online. Some
participants described their need to interact with others, feed off of social connections, and feel
like part of the group, which was hard in the remote space. P13 said, “Being a people-pleaser and
an extrovert, it affects me [and my work] if I feel like I’m not part of the group.” Another
participant shared, “You know the colors model of personalities? I’m a blue. … I can’t do my
work in a silo at my desk. … I have to really, deeply interact with the people that I’m in contact

81
with every day” (P15). On the flipside, some participants expressed needing to overcome their
tendency to be quieter and more reflective in order to feel part of the group. Participants
described the challenges of coming off mute or chiming in from the chat field during virtual
meetings when so many others are talking. P11 shared, “I’m one that processes everything, and I
need a ton of data before I’m comfortable making decisions and I’m very intentional about
things I say and that’s hard when you’re in a Zoom meeting that just flies by.” In addition to the
remote environment posing barriers to belonging for some faculty due to their personality
preference, the in-person immersion environment also created challenges.
The on-site immersion labs challenged participants with different personality styles and
preferences for social interaction. Four faculty described immersion barriers to belonging.
Prioritizing socializing with the faculty group during face-to-face visits over their own desire to
be by themselves after a long day was difficult. P4 stated, “I’d rather work through lunch or sit
off by myself to kind of decompress … but [I] force myself to go and step out of my comfort
zone” to support belonging and team building. Another participant shared the large contrast
between work at home and work on-site in their position. P2 said,
After being by myself most of the day remotely and then transitioning to being “on” all
the time [at immersion] in front of all of these students, I don’t need a sense of belonging
at the end of the day. … I will put myself up in an environment where I can be by myself
after hours.
Weighing personal versus group needs for belonging and community was a learning curve.
Additionally, two faculty described the challenge of connecting with quieter faculty who did not
socialize as much during immersions. P7 shared, “When we all go back to our homes [after
immersion], it’s human nature− who am I going to reach out to the most? Probably the people I

82
connected with over breakfast, lunch, dinner, or after hour discussions.” In some cases,
personality traits created barriers to interactions needed to develop belonging both in remote and
in-person environments. Developing a sense of belonging requires effort and intention to
establish connections which may be particularly challenging for some personality styles,
especially after a long day of interacting with peers and students during immersions.
This section summarized the influence of personal factors of hybrid faculty on participant
experience of belonging. Factors described by the participants included values and priorities,
communication behaviors, and personality. These personal factors, which were unique to the
individual faculty member, both supported and challenged the feeling of belonging in in-person
and remote settings. Technology played a mediating role in how these personal factors supported
or were a barrier to belonging. In addition to personal characteristics, interpersonal factors within
hybrid faculty work relationships also influenced the experience of belonging.
Theme 2: Interpersonal Relationships
Interpersonal relationships between hybrid faculty and their program directors, peer
faculty, and students influenced belonging in supportive and detrimental ways. The presence of
collegiality was a necessary foundation for relationships to support belonging. Hybrid faculty
described work relationships anchored in respect, trust, recognition, and value that supported
belonging. Without collegiality, the connection was isolating. The accessibility and availability
of colleagues for interaction also factored into the feeling of belonging for faculty. Technology
contributed to these supports and barriers in different ways.
Relationships Anchored in Collegiality
Collegiality was a central component of interpersonal relationships that supported a
feeling of belonging. Nine faculty highlighted program directors that encouraged and embodied

83
collegial behaviors as part of the department’s culture. P15 said that the program director was
“out front with how we all need to respect one another as a faculty.” Demonstrating respect
occurred through inviting input from others at faculty meetings and asking for feedback. In
addition, faculty felt trusted when leadership encouraged collaboration and autonomy on work
projects without micro-managing. This trust, in turn, supported hybrid faculty leadership and
creativity. P4 shared that the program director “gave me some really key committees and
demonstrated that [they] had trust in me … and was very supportive of me,” including ideas for
new ways to lead a committee and change existing policies and procedures. Trust also
encouraged the sharing of open and honest feedback for faculty improvement and growth. P11
said, “And to me, a leader that is giving you critical feedback and being vocal about what you’re
doing right and what could be improved is someone that feels like you belong.” Feedback from
leadership and peers supported faculty feelings of being valued and respected members of the
department. The ability to give and receive feedback relied on collegial interactions with trust
and respect which positively influenced belonging.
Belonging was further supported when hybrid faculty were recognized for their
contributions to the academic environment. Five faculty described recognition by leaders and
faculty peers as supporting a feeling belonging. Examples of acknowledgement that instilled
belonging included a shout out at faculty meeting for going above and beyond with students,
accolades for trialing new teaching methods, seeking input due to expertise in a specific area,
and research accomplishments. P9 explained,
Something that our faculty and staff is really trying to do is celebrate each other. …
Anything that people do that we can celebrate, that’s awesome. It’s highlighted at every
department meeting. There’s regular messages sent out. So someone gets a publication,

84
or a presentation, or an award, or becomes a delegate, or gets elected to something− we
celebrate all of that.
Praise was important for belonging. P13 said, “I worry that my contribution doesn’t seem as
much as the people who are physically there. … So when I get recognition … that helps me a lot
to feel like they see the effort I’m putting in.” Recognition helped faculty felt valued and visible,
especially when at a distance. P11 shared, “We have to be cognizant of recognizing people for
what they’re doing and showing support and showing appreciation because it can be a lonely
business if you’re behind the screen and not getting some of that.” Recognition averted
invisibility in the remote environment. Hybrid faculty felt belonging when leaders and peers
acknowledged their contributions to the academic department.
Recognition through student interactions also helped solidify faculty’s sense of belonging
in the academic environment. Eight faculty described student interactions as instrumental to their
belonging experience, including “it’s critical” (P9), “it’s everything” (P7), and “they contribute
so positively to my belonging” (P5). Interactions with students both inside and outside of the
classroom helped the faculty to feel a sense of purpose. P1 shared, “I think some faculty stick it
out through really rough times because they love the students, they love the interaction, and they
love teaching.” Faculty built connection through the Zoom chat field during class, talking at the
end of virtual classes, coaching sessions, group projects, and extracurricular groups or events.
Faculty felt recognized and valued when students gave positive feedback about a class session’s
design, a coaching session, or preparation for clinic. P13 shared, “Positive interactions with
students … just buoys [my belonging] for a while … and really makes me feel like I’m being
impactful and being productive and being part of this [faculty] team in a positive way.” Students

85
supported faculty feeling of value and purpose, which, in turn, supported faculty feeling of
belonging.
Despite multiple supports for collegiality, geographic separation was a barrier to the trust
and respect needed for belonging. Six faculty described specific incidents of diminished
collegiality as a result of their remote position. Faculty described the increased time it took to
gain the trust and permission of their program director or colleagues to launch projects of
interest. P13 relayed the frustration of lack of respect from students in a dual-pathway model.
The faculty recounted that it took teaching in-person for the students “to see me as a full-fledged
faculty member … [instead of] just sort of dismissing me a lot” (P13). Another faculty in a dualpathway model attributed technology barriers as causing student perceptions of remote faculty
inferiority. P2 said that comments on course evals made them feel students perceived “the A-list
faculty are there [on campus] and the B-list faculty are online.” Geographic separation also
created barriers to connection with students when faculty arrived for on-site teaching. In some
cases, students viewed faculty as cultural outsiders. P10 shared that cultural differences created
“a lot of trust issues” between students and faculty, especially during immersions. Trust and
respect, or lack thereof, in interpersonal relationships was negatively impacted by geographic
distance and separation which created a barrier to hybrid faculty sense of belonging.
Relationships Anchored in Accessibility
Accessibility or availability was another critical component of interpersonal relationships
that supported belonging. People with whom hybrid faculty interacted with frequently positively
impacted the feeling of belonging. Nine faculty described department leaders who made
themselves regularly available for meetings and check-ins. P5 said that their program director
“somehow always makes time for everybody, which I don’t know how [they do] with [all of the]

86
people they manage every day.” Faculty described weekly or monthly one-on-one check-in
meetings with their program director. Shared online calendars were a helpful tool to support
interactions for belonging across department members. P7 said, “The program director makes it
clear that [their] Outlook calendar is always available for us to look at and if there’s openings,
we can take any slot that we want.” In addition to individual meetings, participants also
described the importance of department-wide meetings as regular touch points with the broader
faculty. P1 said, “[Meetings are] so important just to see and hear each other, to know that
they’re there, to know that we are really working alongside each other, even if we aren’t
physically alongside each other.” Being available and scheduling time for interactions, both
formal and informal, supported belonging among colleagues.
Accessibility was supported through technology and the use of multiple modes of
communication to build sense of belonging. Fourteen faculty described how technology
facilitated interactions. Video conferencing, work chat tools, availability markers on Teams,
phone calls, and texting on personal devices all provided means for efficient connection. P8
shared, “I’m always in touch with people all the time via many different mediums.” Faculty
reached out with specific communication tools based upon the urgency: a pressing problem or
challenging situation, a task-related question, or a casual check-in. P12 explained, “We have this
unwritten hierarchy of importance. … If you text me, that’s probably pretty urgent. If you call
me, it’s really urgent. If you use Slack, it’s not as urgent.” In addition to within-team
communication, larger group meetings on Zoom also provided opportunities for communication.
Participants described the chat field in meetings as an easy way to connect when remote. P5 said,
“When we’re all on a big Zoom call, it’s common practice to get a private message like, ‘Hey!
Haven’t seen you in a while, how’s it going?’ and that’s a nice little cultural thing that happens a

87
lot.” The availability and accessibility of peers through different communication channels was a
support to faculty sense of belonging as long as the technology tools were used well.
Despite the positives, some faculty’s utilization and preferences for technology created
accessibility barriers that interfered with interpersonal belonging. Although many modes of
communication were available, five faculty described inconsistent and variable use among
faculty members within the department. Consistent implementation across all faculty members
was needed to most benefit a sense of belonging. P1 explained, “Those [software] platforms need
to work and work well, and everybody needs a same level of use. There kind [of] has to be some
ground rules for communication in order to keep communication flowing fluidly … to feel
connectedness.” Individual preferences contributed to detached and fragmented communication
that detracted from belonging. Even though most institutions had software platforms to enhance
faculty collaboration, participants described some team members that were not responsive on
platforms or did not use specific functions. For example, P5 shared, “Having a chat feature or
something that everybody logs into … would be really helpful for everyone, even people inperson. And I’m getting a lot of resistance … People don’t want to adapt to that [technology].”
Faculty that used email-only were noted to delay communication response times which
decreased fluidity and feeling of collaboration. Technology both supported and was a barrier to
the accessibility of communication needed for belonging in interpersonal relationships for hybrid
faculty.
The time constraints of high workloads also were a barrier to accessibility needed for
belonging relationships. Despite fourteen of fifteen faculty reporting a strong feeling of
belonging from their program director, they described the program director’s workload as an ongoing belonging barrier. Participants described leaders with “competing responsibilities” (P10)

88
and “so many different things [they are] trying to support and keep in motion … as a single
individual” (P1). P6 shared, “I have to remember they’re so busy and so tagging them to repeat
the question is an okay thing to do.” In addition to program directors, six participants also
described faculty peers with limited time for connecting with others because “people are busy,
busy, busy” (P14). This was especially the case during immersions, as P4 shared: “The main
[belonging] barrier is that it’s busy and people are exhausted.” Faculty described peers with high
work demands who were less available, slow to respond to texts or emails, or who responded
with a task-focus over personal connection. P1 contrasted the “immediate response and
feedback” possible in the real-world environment with the delayed responses in virtual settings
which can harm belonging. Faculty workloads and time constraints were barriers to hybrid
faculty feeling of belonging.
This section summarized the influence of interpersonal relationships on participant
experience of belonging. Interpersonal relationships for belonging were anchored by trust,
respect, recognition of value, and accessibility. These factors both supported and detracted from
belonging in faculty relationships with program directors, faculty peers, and students. In addition
to these relational elements, broader organizational factors at a department and university level
also influenced the experience of belonging in positive and negative ways.
Theme 3: Organizational Factors
Organizational factors at both the departmental and institutional levels influenced hybrid
faculty feeling of belonging. All 15 participants identified organizational factors contributing to
or detracting from their sense of belonging. Both the immediate environment of the physical
therapy department as well as the broader organizational environment had cultural and structural
factors influencing participants’ feelings of belonging.

89
Organizational Culture Supports of Belonging
Organizational culture supported belonging when rooted in inclusion, shared decisionmaking, and transparent communication. Eleven participants described inclusive practices at the
department and university level that supported belonging. Technology fostered inclusion through
virtual attendance at events that would otherwise be solely on-campus. Each of these are
described below in supporting faculty belonging.
Department-Level. The leadership style and practices of DPT program directors
influenced the sense of belonging for hybrid faculty members. Eleven participants described
inclusive leadership established by the program director as critical to their belonging experience.
P9 said, “It makes all the difference … when [the program director] is authentically engaged and
interested and curious about each person that is working for them and with them.” Leadership
styles rooted in equality between all faculty regardless of title and role supported belonging. P1
described their program director as “just one of us … everybody is equal, no matter what our title
is, no matter where [they] sit … guid[ing] and encourage[ing] collaboration.” Faculty provided
examples of leaders who encouraged everyone around the faculty table to share experiences.
P15’s program director’s vision was “to have a place where diverse opinions and voices were not
just heard, but respected and incorporated into what we are and who we are.” The culture of
inclusivity enabled faculty to be authentic at work and feel comfortable with speaking up, asking
questions, and posing new ideas. Inclusive leadership was a supportive organizational factor for
hybrid faculty belonging.
Hybrid faculty also described how leadership’s commitment to shared decision-making
practices and collaboration enhanced their sense of belonging. Eight faculty described the
importance of having their voice heard in programmatic decisions. Hybrid faculty felt belonging

90
when program directors welcomed faculty thoughts and made decisions considering the faculty’s
viewpoints. P3 said, “I need my opinion to feel heard… and feel like [I’m] contributing to the
way the ship is going, to steering the ship.” Similarly, P13 said the program director “works hard
to engage the hybrid faculty and is always looking at [decisions] from the viewpoint of the …
faculty who have to travel in.” Participating in annual retreats, visioning, and strategic planning
activities with the entire department supported the voices of hybrid faculty. A shared decisionmaking culture was created by specific leadership strategies, including listening skills and
humility when soliciting input from others, as well as transparent, candid, and honest
communication. Leaders also prioritized fostering bonds between faculty through prioritizing
agendas with paired walking breaks during on-site meetings and designing new faculty
orientation with travel onsite to meet other faculty without teaching requirements. P8 said, “They
were so intentional about us physically being there … and the reason wasn’t because of the
[immersion teaching]. It was just because that’s when people [emphasis added] were there.”
Leadership’s value of shared decision-making and collaboration helped hybrid faculty feel
belonging.
University-Level. The broader institution’s mission and values further supported a culture
of inclusion for hybrid faculty. Six faculty credited the mission and values of the broader
organization as supporting their inclusion and feeling of belonging in their hybrid role. Features
of mission statements, including inclusivity, respect, morality, kindness, unity, and anti-racism,
were exemplified in decisions and actions that department and university leaders took. P1 said,
I’ve been a part of lot of institutions that have− well, everybody has core values, right?
But rarely are they truly lived out toward decisions and behaviors. All [employees] are

91
accustomed to those values … You can’t get past too much communication [here]
without hearing one of our core values.
The action-based embodiment of the institution’s mission supported hybrid faculty belonging.
Similarly, P15 said, “It’s the [institution’s] mission and vision [for inclusivity] that actually
supports our program’s mission and vision” to value diversity and inclusivity for faculty and
students alike. Feeling committed to the university and department’s mission supported hybrid
faculty’s purpose and meaning in their role. P14 said, “I’m trying to do better in this world and
one of our missions is to try to contribute to diversity of the workforce … and that’s just so cool
to serve a higher purpose to our profession.” The broader institutional mission and values that
prioritized inclusivity and diversity further supported belonging for faculty.
Inclusive virtual communication practices were an important way that the broader
organization supported faculty belonging. Twelve participants described feeling belonging when
campus events and ceremonies were accessible through technology for virtual attendance.
Observing the broader university’s efforts toward inclusion of remote participants first-hand
helped to support belonging. P11 said, “The [university] has been working very hard to include
us, which is sense of belonging … in things that are typically in-person or only for residential
faculty. So, it’s effort that I see building over time.” Participants described university
communication with programs and faculty, such as town halls, at regular intervals to get updates
and hear about important university-initiatives. Eight faculty referenced that the COVID-19
pandemic supported more widespread use of videoconferencing and virtual social opportunities
on their campus as a whole. P10 said, “Thank goodness for COVID that [broader university
leaders] know how to use Zoom, because otherwise all their meetings were face-to-face.” Virtual
attendance options supported belonging in terms of information sharing. P6 discussed Zoom

92
events that “are opportunities to hear and then to ask questions and things like that… [to] at least
be privy to what’s being said across the board.” Two faculty described remote inclusion as a
work-in-progress, where some university offices needed a reminder after initially forgetting to
include Zoom options for remote faculty. Thus, regular communication leveraging video
technology supported hybrid faculty inclusion in campus meetings and events that supported
belonging.
Organizational Culture Barriers to Belonging
Organizational barriers emerged from participant interviews that interfered with the
feeling of belonging. All 15 participants described times when organizational actions or practices
detracted from belonging. Three faculty went so far as to use the word “exclusive” or
“inequitable” in their descriptions. Barriers to inclusivity spanned from being a new program on
campus and poor use of technology to curricular design and policies and procedures.
University recognition of the physical therapy department was a barrier to inclusion
described by hybrid faculty participants. Many participants shared either limited or a complete
lack of visibility and recognition for the department and its role within the broader organization.
Nine participants described being one of the only hybrid or graduate programs on campus or a
new program on campus. Faculty said the larger university “forgets that we’re here” (P12) and
“doesn’t get what we do” (P3). One participant described how their program leadership
intentionally encouraged faculty to make connections outside of the department in an effort to
improve visibility. P15’s program director said, “When you’re on campus, you need to go out of
your way to really meet people and become part of this campus because it’s not going to happen
[spontaneously].” For multiple faculty, the main form of recognition of the physical therapy
program from higher up in the university came in the form of financial visibility. Five faculty

93
described acknowledgement within the institution as being a profitable degree program and
receiving compliments from deans and university leadership for bringing in money. These
comments had a reverse impact on belonging: causing harm. As P14 said, “PT is off in the
corner like a cash cow.” Similarly, P2 said, “They love us because we are bringing in more
money [with a hybrid pathway]. We’re like the powerhouse for the university… but they aren’t
really sure how to include us… when it comes to university events.” Being known and visible to
the broader university community for financial profit, instead of program purpose, detracted
from hybrid faculty belonging.
Technology use was another barrier causing limited visibility within the campus
community for hybrid faculty. Participants experienced inequity in participating in campus
events and committees compared to on-site participants. Seven participants described ongoing
advocacy needed to request virtual options for committee participation and special events. P2
shared that although recent virtual access to faculty senate meetings was established, “other
meetings or other campus events like faculty lunches that happen every once in a while, for
anyone in the university, there’s nothing like that for [hybrid faculty].” Similarly, P10 described
a faculty award assembly where the hybrid faculty were Zoomed in “with no audio and just their
face waving on the screen” while in-person attendees received lunch and certificates. Combined
virtual and in-person environments were especially problematic to belonging. Five hybrid faculty
described feeling in the periphery during campus-wide virtual events with limited
acknowledgement verbally or in the chat. P15 also explained, “The president would forget that
we were at a meeting that included all the faculty. So, others would have to remind [them] to see
if there’s any questions from the chat.” Experiences of restricted participation as remote event
attendees was a barrier to hybrid faculty feeling of inclusion and belonging.

94
Faculty in dual-pathway delivery models also described a feeling of inequity between
residential and hybrid faculty. Three of five dual-pathway faculty’s belonging experience was
characterized by struggling to feel value because of being the only one, the new one, or the
different one as a hybrid employee. Although COVID provided an opportunity for a shared work
experience when all faculty transitioned into remote work, hybrid faculty perceived that on-site
faculty have since forgotten the challenges of remote communication. P2 described the need to
treat all faculty similarly: “It doesn’t matter if they’re [faculty] on campus or if they’re off
campus, kind of get used to thinking of everyone in the same way, like, we’re all faculty.” Three
hybrid faculty perceived their remote work arrangements lead to negative perceptions and
exclusion from other department colleagues with different on-campus responsibilities. P4 shared,
“If [the faculty] is starting from a place of inequity or perceived inequity, then trust isn’t going to
develop.” Furthermore, P13 described, “I work really hard to show that I’m here and invested
and engaged but … I’m wondering, it’s that little niggle in the back of your head, like what are
they [residential faculty] thinking?” Negative perceptions and feelings of inequity compromised
belonging and inclusion for some hybrid faculty in dual-pathway curricular models.
University policies and procedures also created barriers to feeling belonging and included
for hybrid faculty. Six participants described challenging institutional practices for belonging.
Ambiguities around promotion and tenure policies, participation on some university committees,
and finance-related procedures were present. P4 said, “I don’t think that there was a plan at all as
to how [hiring virtual faculty] would look [and] what the rules were.” Faculty lamented about
certain committees that still require in-person attendance, such as the promotion and tenure
committee continuing to require paper dossiers. New hybrid programs and pathways meant less
understanding of processes for hybrid faculty seeking promotion and tenure. P13 said, “I’m

95
interested in how promotion packets are viewed from hybrid faculty … because it is newer [at
the university] and what the perception might be.” Lack of precedence created ambiguity for
expectations of success. Four participants described belonging challenges of financial processes.
Fronting the money for immersion travel, waiting for reimbursement checks, and managing tax
implications of out-of-state work was frustrating and burdensome. Addressing financial
challenges involved hybrid faculty communicating outside of the physical therapy department to
higher up within the university, which resulted in slow and fractured communication to resolve
issues. P3 said a needed university improvement is: “Thinking about [tax policies] and logistics
of being remote ahead of time so that [hybrid faculty] don’t have to overcome the barriers
themselves [and] figure out how to get out of the administrative black hole.” These policies, or
lack thereof, detracted from an organizational culture of inclusivity and were a barrier to hybrid
faculty perception of belonging.
Organizational Structure Supports of Belonging
Organizational structure influenced belonging in positive ways. Fourteen participants
described an aspect of the department or organizational structure that supported their feeling
belonging as a hybrid faculty member. When on-campus, physical workspaces within the DPT
department positively influenced faculty belonging. For eight participants, working in large
group spaces, conference rooms, or office-sharing was a way to build relationships within the
faculty. Space for shared downtime on campus was also important. P11 said, “There’s a big,
open outdoor area where we can be outside and play games or do fun stuff on our breaks. So, we
utilize that quite a bit … for us to make connections.” Five participants brought up picturesque
teaching locations with windows that overlooked nature. P8 described their program’s L-shaped
lab space supporting belonging as “students [on either side] and there’s windows along the whole

96
side. … It ties us together because it’s one huge space [with all of the] students in there along
with all the faculty. So, we’re all in it together.” Some participants also described university
swag decorating common areas that boosted their feelings of belonging and attachment to their
department and the university. In addition to group space, access to individual workspace also
supported belonging. Six participants described having access to private workspaces during onsite immersions, which made them feel an important part of the team. P6 shared, “There’s plenty
of opportunity for me to [work on site] … even if I’m not part of lab that day. So that promotes a
sense of belonging as I don’t have to stay stuck in my hotel or find a coffee shop.” When on
campus, P4 regularly was “leaving my door open … allow[ing] those [belonging] conversations
[with on-site co-workers] to happen.” The physical structure of DPT departments supported
belonging through group and individual workspace options to allow faculty to meet their work
responsibilities.
At a broader university level, faculty described support of their sense of belonging
through opportunities for engagement, collaboration, and recognition within the institutional
space. Six faculty felt belonging when the university provided resources for participation at
events and inter-departmental activities to connect with others in the broader university.
Participants engaged in social activities on campus, like attending basketball games and
participating in wellness groups, as well as faculty development activities and university-wide
writing groups. These extra-departmental activities created broader institutional connections and
bonds. P14 shared, “I have loved meeting other [faculty] across all programs, like literature,
veterinary school, physician assistant, computer science … all there wanting to just sit and
connect, but also write together.” Involvement in university-wide committees or groups provided
an opportunity for being known outside of the DPT department and expanding one’s network. P7

97
described recognition by faculty outside of physical therapy in other campus virtual meetings as
a result of their writing group involvement:
I haven’t met this person in-person ever, but we’ve interacted enough via [online writing
groups] where he recognized me as soon as I jumped on [Zoom]. And someone else
reached out: ‘I remember you from the writing group and you were talking about such
and such research. Any way we can help?’“
Opportunities to expand networks, such as forming connections for research collaboration,
instilled belonging for faculty.
Organizational Structure Barriers to Belonging
Organizational barriers relating to department or university structures also emerged from
participant interviews that interfered with the feeling of belonging. Fourteen participants
described aspects of the built environment or infrastructure that created belonging challenges.
Specifically, participants described department size challenges, physical workspace challenges,
and dual pathway curricular structure challenges.
Department Size. Department size limited the frequency of contact needed for connection
in work relationships. Seven faculty described the challenge of connecting with the broader
faculty outside of their smaller work teams. Faculty naturally felt more connected to the people
they interacted with most regularly, such as teaching and clinical education teams. P6 shared,
Now for some faculty that I don’t teach with, I don’t know them very well at all. We’ll
say ‘Hi!’ when we’re [on-campus] and see each other on meetings … and every once in a
while, we’ll overlap on campus for immersions. There may be limited opportunity to do
some extra-curricular thing with them, but you’re so busy when you’re there [for

98
immersion] that if what they want to do and you want to do is different, it’s like- you go
do your own thing!
Faculty relied on program meetings, research projects, department events like graduation, and
retreats in order to interact with the larger group of faculty. For example, P5 described a barrier
to belonging with colleagues as, “Not having touch points. There are so many people on the
faculty that I just don’t interact with at all.” As faculty sizes expanded with both full-time and
adjunct faculty numbers, participants described the limited ability to all be in one room, to have
projects together, and to engage in a big group setting. This detracted from their broader feeling
of knowing others within the department. Five participants described wanting more opportunities
for bringing the larger faculty group together to make and maintain connections outside of their
smaller teaching teams. P1 said their sense of belonging would improve by the department
“creating more structured opportunities to meet or collaborate with other faculty.” Limited
interactions and connections with faculty outside of micro-teaching teams decreased the sense of
belonging of hybrid faculty.
The size of the student body also challenged faculty feeling belonging due to limited
opportunity for personal connections. Six faculty described that creating meaningful online
relationships with large numbers of students in a cohort was difficult. P3 stated, “With so many
students, you can only interact with so many of them so often.” Although faculty described some
students staying after class or sharing personal information in the Zoom chat, the challenges to
connection remained in the large group setting. Teaching online with student faces spread out
across multiple screens limited interaction and ability to read the room. P1 shared, “I can only
see at any one given time about 20 [students] on the screen … so I lose the ability to really feel
like I’m in the classroom … and read the [students] which is a huge [belonging] barrier.”

99
Another issue was video use preferences and requirements. Some programs required cameras to
be on during class while others did not. P10 said, “There are students where I don’t know that I
would even know them if I ran into them at the grocery store because … [they] have cameras
off.” Others noted that limited contact with students overall was a challenge to developing a
sense of belonging. P4 shared, “It takes me twice or three times as long [to learn their names] as
compared to a brick-and-mortar program where you see them every day.” The structural barrier
of a large department size resulted in limited the frequency and depth of interaction across
faculty needed for belonging.
Dual-Pathway Curricular Structure. Hybrid faculty in programs with dual-pathway
models described the challenging impact of proximity on their experience of belonging. Five
faculty interviewed were employed in a DPT program with a dual-pathway curricular model.
These DPT programs had decades-long history of face-to-face instruction with on-site faculty
prior to integration of a new hybrid model. The adoption of a new curricular model, new faculty,
and new policies were a major organizational change. P13 said, “We are still transitioning
towards hybrid faculty as part of the DPT program. … There’s some systems where… this is
how they’ve always done it and they don’t realize maybe that it’s a little bit exclusive.” Faculty
expressed lack of visibility or acknowledgment in meetings and department events that
negatively impacted belonging. Faculty in dual pathways also perceived siloed decision-making,
one-way information delivery in meetings, and other faculty reaching out as an after-thought. P4
shared that they sometimes asked themselves, “Am I part of things? Do I feel welcome?” The
set-up of physical spaces for dual-pathway faculty meetings made it hard for some faculty to
actively participate in meetings to the same extent as in-person attendees due to the room’s
audio, limited screen visibility, or limited chat field acknowledgement in Zoom. P2 shared, “In

100
faculty meetings, I was like ‘Hey, I’m here.’ Or ‘Hey I can’t hear what you’re talking about- can
you move the microphone or look up here every once in a while?” Policies and proximity
negatively impacted the belonging experience of dual pathway hybrid faculty.
Physical Workspaces. The physical space arrangements within the PT department and on
in the broader university created barriers to faculty belonging. Five participants described
teaching in spaces at a distance from the main university campus or at locations on campus
separate from the residential pathway of the program. Detached locations were particularly the
case as new hybrid programs and pathways became established. P6 shared, “We were renting
another facility for our lab immersion, so it was very much that we just happened to be linked on
paper to [the university]. So … the institution has not contributed to my sense of belonging.”
Even on-campus separation for programs with dual-pathway models was problematic. Two
participants described the challenge of being located in a separate location from the residential
teaching site: “There are always snafus. There’s always a problem over there … so sometimes
you feel like an afterthought” (P13). Some immersion space arrangements created a feeling of
detachment and limited the possibility for in-person, cross-disciplinary connections needed for
belonging within the department and wider campus. P8 described feeling “no interaction with a
fellow health science program [in a different school within the university], but we have all of this
PR for our program within our … school.” The feeling of disconnection and detachment created
by physical space arrangements was a barrier to belonging.
Faculty also described the lack of personalized workspace as a challenge to belonging as
a hybrid employee. Five participants described the difficulty with not having a dedicated space to
work from during times on campus. Some preferred to work at the hotel but recognized less face
time with others as a result; others just resolved to knowing that their work productivity would

101
be less during immersions. P14 shared, “I’m prepared that I’m gonna get very little work done
when I’m on site, and that’s kind of the nature of the beast.” Four other participants shared their
frustration with on-site work set-ups that detracted from their feeling of belonging. P10 said,
“It’s not enough space. … It actually does stress me out not to have a home camp when I’m there
… or a quiet space to start my day” and detracts from belonging with colleagues. Similarly, P13
said, during immersions “I’d like to have a space that the students know where I’m located so
they can come find me” as opposed to [my workspace] being in different places each day and
each immersion.” Thus, features of the physical workspace for both individual and group work
could be a barrier to belonging for some hybrid faculty.
This section summarized the influence of organizational factors on the experience of
belonging for hybrid faculty. Multiple factors emerged that supported and interfered with
belonging, including organizational culture and organizational structure. Organizational culture
rooted in inclusivity was the primary support to belonging, while program visibility, technology
use, and policies and procedures resulted in feelings of exclusion that were a barrier to
belonging. Organizational structures including workspaces and opportunities for
interdepartmental collaboration had the potential to support belonging. Conversely, department
size, curricular structure, and lack of on-campus space for private work were structures that
detracted from belonging. Each of these supports and barriers played out differently depending
on the unique perceptions of the individual factor member and their environments.
Summary of Findings for Research Question 2
Supports and barriers for hybrid physical therapy faculty belonging emerged across three
areas: personal characteristics, interpersonal relationships, and organizational factors. These
factors support and deter from a sense of belonging based on individual faculty perspectives and

102
experiences. Technology influenced belonging across all of these areas. Positively, technology
supported accessibility and inclusive culture if it was utilized in an efficient and person-centered
way; yet technology interfered with belonging when hybrid attendees felt excluded in virtual
communication and meetings.
Summary
This study sought to understand the experience of belonging for hybrid, full-time
physical therapy faculty from across ten academic institutions in the United States. The
experience of faculty belonging centered around connecting with colleagues as humans through
care and authenticity. Technology supported faculty’s ability to relate with the whole person.
Participants felt belonging through intentional, deliberate, and effortful connection with others
across remote and in-person work environments. For hybrid faculty, belonging developed and
grew from connections with others. This included prior relationships as well as new connections
created by shared experiences and identities. Belonging was not stagnant, but changed with
academic cycles and in response to work demands and program maturation.
Supports and barriers to hybrid physical therapy faculty belonging emerged from the
interviews. Factors influencing belonging extended from personal factors to interpersonal
relationships to organizational factors most broadly. On a personal level, faculty values and
priorities, communication behaviors, and personality impacted belonging in positive and
detrimental ways. Interpersonally, relationships with program directors, colleagues, and students,
each influenced belonging. The presence of collegiality and accessibility were key interpersonal
factors that emerged for hybrid to feel belonging. Finally, organizational factors related culture
and structure influenced belonging in supportive and inhibitive ways. Organizational factors
extended from the departmental-level through the university-level environments. Each of these

103
factors facilitated or inhibited belonging based on the unique participant’s perceptions and
environment.
The next chapter builds on these findings from the participant interviews. Chapter Five
presents recommendations for supporting hybrid faculty belonging in physical therapy education.
Recommendations are rooted within the Bronfenbrenner ecological systems model and span
across multiple systems that encompass the individual faculty member, the immediate
department, and broader institutional environments.

104
Chapter Five: Discussion
The purpose of the study was to understand the experience of belonging for full-time,
hybrid physical therapy faculty. Given the growing number of DPT hybrid curricular models and
faculty vacancies in the United States, the belonging experience has important relevance to
physical therapy faculty work satisfaction, job retention, and personal well-being. Fifteen semistructured interviews provided a lens for exploring the hybrid physical therapy faculty belonging
experience as well as the supports and barriers for belonging across the microsystem and
mesosystem of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems framework (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). This
chapter presents the study’s findings within the context of current literature, my researcher’s
reflection on findings, four recommendations for improving sense of belonging for hybrid
physical therapy faculty, limitations and delimitations of the study design, and suggestions for
future research. I conclude with the significance of the study’s findings for the field of academic
physical therapy.
Discussion of Findings
The study’s findings related to hybrid physical therapy faculty sense of belonging both
support and uniquely add to the belonging literature and current academic physical therapy
practices. The findings revealed that hybrid physical therapy faculty felt belonging and deep
connection with others across remote and in-person environments. Supports and barriers to
belonging emerged within both the department and university systems where hybrid faculty work
and interact. Connecting these findings to the broader literature and theories presented in Chapter
Two, this study offered a nuanced perspective on the experiences of hybrid physical therapy
faculty belonging. The influence of interpersonal relationships and organizational culture on
belonging aligned with the initial conceptual framework, whereas the structure of the physical

105
therapy department and broader university surfaced as new important influences on belonging
for hybrid faculty. Figure 2 below presents a revised model of the conceptual framework
originally presented in Chapter Two based on the study’s findings.
Figure 3
Revised Conceptual Framework
Full-time, hybrid physical therapy faculty feel belonging at work. This was an
unexpected finding given the prevalence of existing literature suggesting remote faculty
challenges to belonging, including isolation and loneliness (Butters & Gann, 2022; Maier, 2012;
Personality
Communication
behaviors
Faculty
Colleagues
Department
Leaders
DPT Department
Culture
DPT Department
Structure
Values
& priorities
Students
Col egiality
Accessibility
Hybrid PT Faculty
Sense of Belonging University
Culture
University
Structure

106
Toner et al., 2021). The belonging experience of faculty in the current study may be more
positive due to the participants’ full-time, core faculty status (Haviland et al., 2017), the nature of
employment with a mix of online and in-person work (Fristedt, 2022; Morrison-Smith & Ruiz,
2020), and the very nature of physical therapist practice (American Physical Therapy
Association, 2010). Care is a fundamental component of the patient-provider relationship and
one of eight core values guiding physical therapists (American Physical Therapy Association,
2010). Participants described collegial behaviors and inclusive practices that created a work
environment valuing authenticity and humility. If a particular work group or micro-team was not
providing enough belonging support, participants described leveraging a different team, peers,
leadership, or students for belonging. The composition of multiple work teams inherent in
physical therapy departments, such as teaching teams, service committees, and research groups,
may have contributed to the positive belonging experienced by participants in the study that
differed from prior literature. The findings underscore that care inherent in clinical physical
therapist-to-patient relationships is also important in academic physical therapist work
relationships for belonging.
For the hybrid physical therapy study participants, technology provided a window for
relating. Baumeister and Leary’s (1995) belonging theory posits that deep personal bonds with
affective concern and frequent contact are the two essential components of belonging;
technology supported each of these required belonging elements in this study. Participants
described how technology created opportunities for accessibility, authenticity, and connection.
Prior literature suggests that having many technology options at work connects coworkers
superficially, but lacks the deep connection needed for belonging (Fristedt, 2021; McClure &
Brown, 2008; Morrison-Smith & Ruiz, 2020). This superficial technology use was not the case

107
for this study’s participants; hybrid faculty described utilizing technologies for meaningful
interaction. Although literature suggests face-to-face communication, such as through video
conferencing, is a superior mode for developing trust (Morrison-Smith & Ruiz, 2020; Nguyen et
al., 2022; Sacco & Ismail, 2014), participants in this study described texting and direct message
chats as an important contributor to belonging. In this way, technology afforded informal means
of communication, including sharing personal photos, making jokes, celebrating birthdays, and
engaging in hobbies, which supported belonging. This study’s findings highlight that a faculty
member’s use and implementation of technology is more important for belonging than simply
having access to multiple technology resources at work.
Substantial effort was required to prioritize people within hybrid work responsibilities.
Participants described the conscious awareness and deliberate intention needed to engage in
belonging behaviors that sometimes put their own well-being aside. Literature asserts the role of
motivation in belonging; individuals who value belonging are motivated to establish
relationships with others (Allen et al., 2021; Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Given that most
participants in this study expressed that belonging was moderately or very important to them,
motivation likely supported their effort and persistence in belonging behaviors (Bandura, 1989;
Schunk & Usher, 2019; Walton & Brady, 2017). Participants engaged in person-centered
communication and described an acute awareness for the potential of technology, especially
email, to decrease the humanness of communication. Participants needed to overcome social
discomfort and imposter syndrome to contact colleagues, ask questions, and get to know one
another to feel belonging. Person-centered communication and self-advocacy likely contributed
to a feeling of mutual caring that characterizes belonging relationships, while also protecting
against the isolation and loneliness commonly experienced in hybrid and remote contexts. This

108
study’s findings shed light on the effort and intention required of faculty to engage in probelonging behaviors across both remote and in-person environments.
The extent to which participants described immersions as a highlight of their belonging
experience in their hybrid role was unexpected. Given that social spontaneity does not arise
naturally in virtual settings, in-person face-to-face encounters are important for belonging
(Fristedt, 2021; Morrison-Smith & Ruiz, 2020). Immersions provided faculty with a structured
and semi-regular opportunity for socialization. Study participants described immersions as
offering a special time for fun, games, chit chat, leisure, and culture-building. Mostly absent
from this study’s participant descriptions of how immersion contributed to belonging was the
idea of working toward a shared teaching goal (Fristedt, 2021; McClure & Brown, 2008). At
immersion, faculty spend long days together in the classroom teaching students, yet participant
responses focused on time spent socializing outside of the classroom as supporting belonging.
The findings may point to the crucial role of relational interactions at casual, informal social
gatherings during on-site immersions for positive belonging over professional-focused
collaboration in the classroom.
Features of organizational culture that were most important to this study’s participants’
belonging were inclusive leadership practices and inclusive technology use within in the broader
organization. Literature supports the role of the direct supervisor or manager in the feeling of
belonging and work satisfaction of employees (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999; Byrd, 2022;
Coqual, 2020; Hill, 2022; Rath & Conchie, 2009). Most participants described feeling belonging
working for program directors who made their commitment to respect, equality, listening,
humility, and shared decision-making apparent despite geographic separation; yet, inclusive
culture was not always enacted, especially in dual-pathway programs with more susceptibility to

109
proximity bias (Tsipursky, 2022). Participants described barriers to an inclusive, belonging
culture within some department micro-teams as well as the larger faculty group. Participants also
described their perceived inequity compared to on-campus faculty in university-wide events due
to a lack of inclusive technology skills at the broader university leadership level. There is limited
research regarding administrator technology use, especially as it relates to belonging; most
research relates to technology access, finances, and e-learning (Inside Higher Ed, 2021; Johnson
et al., 2020; Talib et al., 2021). This study provides insights into the role of university and
department leaders’ technological and communication practices that influence belonging and
inclusion in the virtual setting.
Participants described the need to feel recognized at a departmental and institutional
level, yet organizational structure impacted the visibility needed for belonging. Current literature
describes problems with belonging related to academic rank and promotion structures (Haviland
et al., 2017; Kezar, 2012; Toner et al, 2021), but not as it relates to department structures and
campus environments. Aspects of organizational structure that harmed belonging included being
a new physical therapy program on college campuses with few graduate programs or few hybrid
curricular models. Some faculty described their physical therapy department being known by
campus leaders more as a revenue stream than for the academic work completed by the faculty.
Limited or superficial recognition harms belonging (Haviland et al., 2021). Furthermore, dualpathway curricular models posed barriers to belonging for hybrid physical therapy faculty. Some
study participants described proximity bias and lack of information sharing between on-campus
faculty and hybrid faculty that diminished belonging. A theoretical explanation for the exclusion
felt by faculty in dual-pathway programs likely relates to “in-group” versus “out-group”
undertones which are damaging to sense of belonging (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Steele et al.,

110
2002; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Walton & Brady, 2017). The dual pathway model created a
residential “in-group” and a hybrid “out-group” based on some of the participants’ descriptions.
Organizational culture and structure at the department and broader institutional level influenced
belonging.
Researcher’s Reflection
As a teacher, leader, and clinician, human connection is the crux of my daily work.
Understanding people for who they are and challenging them to meet their highest potential
matters to me. As I engaged in my doctoral studies, the theory of belonging shed new light on
my natural inclination to make people feel seen and valued. Over the years, I watched talented
faculty leave academia because of stress, disconnection, feeling invisible, and overwhelmed. I
had my own personal struggles with burnout in the field as well. The promise of hybrid curricula
in physical therapy education seemed a way to manage some aspects of faculty stress and
burnout while also applying the current science of learning in a needed way to meet the diverse
needs of today’s student. The learning curve as a hybrid faculty member was steep. I had to learn
people, processes, and culture through technology and short snippets of time. Even more so, I
needed to help my new community learn about me and, hopefully, care about me. Every day as I
walked into my home office and turned on my computer, I found myself grappling with how to
fulfill my academic responsibilities while also feeling part of something bigger from 3,000 miles
away from campus.
Listening to the study participants reinforced that human connection does not disappear
with geographic separation or technology use. The same themes of developing rapport and
connection with patients in clinic rang true in the stories of building trust, respect, and
meaningful connection within an academic department. Connecting with people mattered.

111
Belonging at work was important; it made the work fun and it made the stresses relatable and
shared. Belonging was hard and something that required intention and effort. It naturally ebbed
and flowed. Building relationships, though not an official work responsibility, needed to be a
faculty priority to withstand the potential isolation and loneliness of hybrid work. Because hybrid
education is so new in entry-level DPT education, participants learned how to belong on their
feet and adopted behaviors that extended work relationships into personal lives, non-work roles,
and friendships. What is known about collegiality and accessibility for building strong work
relationships remained an anchor between faculty and their program directors, peers, and
students. Technology sometimes made belonging easier and sometimes made belonging harder.
When used effectively, technology helped colleagues be connected, be present, and be authentic.
Participants described work relationships rooted in care, concern, play, and fellowship. The end
result? Maslow’s (1943) basic need for belonging was fulfilled in many ways through the work
environments of these hybrid faculty participants.
Recommendations for Practice
The following section focuses on the recommendations for practice based on the findings
of this study. The overarching recommendations are anchored in Bronfenbrenner’s ecological
systems framework and supported by current literature (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). Each
recommendation connects to the interpersonal (i.e., microsystem) or organizational (i.e.,
mesosystem) level to which it addresses.
Recommendation 1: Provide Onboarding Training for New Hybrid Faculty to Enhance
Belonging
Participants in this study described the effort and intention required to feeling belonging
in hybrid environments. Not a single participant described a formal event or training program

112
that supported their adoption of belonging behaviors in a hybrid role. Instead, faculty described
the learn-as-you-go behaviors and processes they utilized to feel belonging in the hybrid work
environment. Given the limited time resources and many competing responsibilities of junior
faculty and program directors alike (Bennie & Rodriguez, 2019; Varnado et al., 2021), the
recommendation is for departments to provide training to enhance belonging knowledge and
skills as part of the onboarding process for new hybrid faculty members.
Early belonging training can set the groundwork for new faculty to develop and integrate
pro-belonging attitudes and behaviors at the start of their work role. To mitigate in-group versus
out-group tendencies, training in dual-pathway models should include all new faculty regardless
of a hybrid or fully on-campus role. Explicit discussion of belonging from the outset of the
faculty position sets an important tone about the department’s culture and priorities. Starting the
training with a discussion of the links between belonging, health, job performance, and wellbeing will provide new faculty with motivation to engage in the training (Allen et al., 2021).
Based on this study’s findings, training design recommendations include role plays to develop
person-centered communication and self-advocacy skills; case scenarios to prioritize work
responsibilities (e.g., prioritize people within work); and simulations to practice using video
conferencing tools and other technology to promote trust, safety, respect, and recognition
between colleagues. Assignment of a hybrid faculty mentor as part of the onboarding process
provides an immediate and accessible connection for hybrid faculty (Kezar, 2012; Jasgur, 2022).
The mentor serves to support adoption of belonging behaviors and competencies through peer
modeling, as well as feedback, reflection, and verbal persuasion to boost new faculty selfefficacy (Schunk & Usher, 2019). The goal of incorporating belonging training upon onboarding
is to build the capacity and competency of faculty members.

113
Program directors and university administrators can take action steps to design belonging
training as part of faculty onboarding, as well as engage in behaviors to support faculty’s transfer
of the training knowledge and skills to their daily workflow. First, administrators assess the
department’s current onboarding procedures related to knowledge and skills for belonging at
work to determine the strengths and gaps. Next, assessment of the current faculty’s feeling of
belonging provides insight into areas to focus on with new faculty. Identifying peer mentors and
current faculty champions that value workplace belonging and demonstrate pro-social behaviors
will be necessary. These peer mentors will help new faculty integrate training into their daily
workflow and communication. Following the onboarding training, administrators should followup with new faculty in mid-semester or semester-end meetings to gather feedback on training
efficacy, current feelings of belonging, and challenges. Feedback meetings will inform iterations
to the onboarding training, as well as ongoing professional development related to belonging for
individual faculty, micro-teams, and the larger department in support of faculty belonging. In
addition to enhancing belonging at the individual level through faculty training and work
integration, there should also be a concerted effort to enhance belonging at a micro-team level
through colleagues within the hybrid faculty’s microsystem.
Recommendation 2: Build Collegial Micro-Team Culture to Enhance Belonging
Faculty in this study described a feeling of belonging that was inconsistent across work
teams. Participants felt belonging on at least one micro-team within their work responsibilities.
Important qualities for feeling belonging within interpersonal work relationships included
demonstrating collegiality through trust and respect, feeling valued, and using multiple modes of
communication to support accessibility. Not all micro-team members displayed these qualities,
which detracted from feeling belonging for some participants. The recommendation is for all

114
faculty to build collegial micro-team cultures across their department to increase person-centered
connection within hybrid faculty work.
Micro-teams are a common component of physical therapy faculty work, whether as part
of teaching, research, or service responsibilities. Creating effective micro-cultures on virtual
teams requires discussion and commitment to shared values (Lovegrove, 2023). Applied to
collegiality, shared values include trust, respect, and value for all team members as well as
prioritizing personal connection and accessibility. Teams should formalize their values and
norms for collaboration using team agreements as part of their work processes (Hill, 2023). After
establishing microcultures and expectations, the agreements should be reviewed and discussed
by team members on a semi-regular basis, such as annually. Assessing team culture regularly
supports desired outcomes. Check-ins with questions designed around collegiality, accessibility,
and inclusion could provide team leads and department leaders with important feedback
(Lovegrove, 2023). Questions may include, “I am recognized by my team members for my
professional expertise,” “I feel interpersonal trust and respect with the other members of this
team,” or “My team members are usually accessible to me during working hours” (Haviland et
al., 2021; Varnado et al., 2021). The goal of building micro-team culture is to improve awareness
and advocacy for collegiality behaviors within the team and across the department.
Faculty and program directors can engage in the following steps to improve micro-culture
within department teams. First, program directors can establish the importance of belonging
within the department and the role of collegial micro-teams in supporting belonging. Then,
faculty champions can provide a training on collegial and accessible team behaviors. An
exemplary micro-team that demonstrates collegial behavior can be identified as inspiration as the
initiative rolls out. Next, program directors can allocate time for micro-teams to develop their

115
own shared values and team agreements. Teams can present on their progress toward achieving
the shared values and goals at set intervals during department meetings. Later, a formative
assessment of micro-team collegiality and inclusivity can be implemented on a semesterly or
annual basis. From there, administrators can identify collective areas for department-wide
improvement across multiple micro-team assessment results. These collective areas will guide
the design of future training initiatives for the department related to collegial team culture and
belonging. In addition to increasing belonging at the microsystem level through micro-team
culture, faculty belonging should also be fostered through the actions of department leaders (e.g.,
program directors).
Recommendation 3: Support DPT Department Leaders in Developing Inclusive Virtual
Leadership Skills to Enhance Belonging
Faculty in this study described the importance of inclusive leadership and shared
decision-making in their experience of belonging, especially as it relates to technology. Program
directors set the tone for department culture and collegiality; in hybrid environments, this tone
must be set in both virtual and on-campus settings. The recommendation is that departments can
support leadership training for physical therapy program directors and other department leaders,
such as admissions directors, clinical education leadership, and committee chairs, as it relates to
virtual application of inclusive leadership skills. Based on this study’s results, program leaders
within DPT programs with a dual curricular pathway structure or large department size are a
specific target of this training to overcome structural barriers to connection and belonging.
Despite a plethora of leadership styles in existence, inclusive leadership approaches
directly support belonging for employees in hybrid and virtual work environments. Virtual
inclusive leadership strategies address the marginalization that can occur with geographically

116
separated teams (Byrd, 2022). Inclusive leadership training for program leaders would focus on
creating interpersonal bonds across faculty, increasing awareness to bias and inequity that may
occur as a result of geographic separation, encouraging recognition of accomplishments,
improving cultural intelligence, and promoting a sense of belonging for all faculty (Byrd, 2022).
An important component of the training includes establishing communication guidelines for how
and when team members should communicate with one another (Jasgur, 2022). The guidelines
should reinforce this study’s finding of the importance of pro-belonging behaviors, personcentered communication, and accessibility of leadership for belonging. The goal of this
recommendation is to support inclusive leadership development while mitigating the potential
for exclusion, isolation, and loneliness among hybrid faculty. g.
Program directors and other DPT program leaders, along with their university
supervisors, have an important role in enacting the leadership training recommendation. First,
university supervisors can assess program leadership’s strengths and weaknesses using an
anonymous feedback process from current faculty within the department. Because program
director assessment is encouraged as part of the CAPTE-accreditation for DPT programs,
incorporating questions that assess leadership skills is plausible. Next, identified gaps related to
inclusive virtual leadership knowledge and skills can be targeted through financial support for
leadership development and training outside of the organization. A post-training community of
practice regularly attended by training participants would support program leadership’s ongoing
integration of skills into work. Connection and networking within the community of practice
with other higher education leaders, not solely in physical therapy, may help to support creative
application of training content. Finally, after-training reviews administered by DPT leadership’s
supervisors will be important to assess ongoing application of new skills into department

117
leadership practices. In addition to targeting DPT leadership capacity and skills to improve
hybrid faculty belonging, broader university support as part of the hybrid faculty’s mesosystem
is necessary.
Recommendation 4: Provide Financial Support for Prioritizing People within Work to
Enhance Belonging
In this study, participants described feeling lack of visibility, limited opportunities for
interdepartmental collaboration, or lack of access to participate as a member of the broader
campus community. Even with adequate technology resources, some hybrid faculty participants
were not able to engage with the broader campus community as equals during virtual events and
activities due to poor planning and technology implementation. Despite these challenges, an
important support of belonging was on-site socializing outside of teaching responsibilities. The
recommendation is for university leaders to model the importance of a belonging culture that
prioritizes people through financial support of activities that bring faculty together at work for
connection, both in-person and online.
To foster belonging, university leadership must value people and promote relational
activities as a part of faculty work. University leadership can demonstrate this value through
allocation of funds, time, and resources to support hybrid faculty participation within campus
events (Jasgur, 2022). Prioritizing people within work responsibilities financially means
implementing semi-regular faculty programs and events for social connection in-person and
virtually, approving travel for on-site work and socializing, recognizing and rewarding faculty
accomplishments, and reimbursing faculty development that targets relational skills (Hill &
Bartol, 2018; Waller, 2020). Financial support also involves prioritizing technological resources
that enable participation within large groups (i.e., video conferencing platforms) but also enables

118
development of personal relationships (i.e., web cameras, collaborative software) (Fristedt,
2021). The goal of this recommendation is to improve opportunities for inclusion, participation,
socialization, and recognition within and across university departments.
University leaders and program directors can prioritize and provide financial support of
people-first initiatives to support a culture of belonging for hybrid faculty. First, leaders can
assess the current frequency and quality of campus-wide events occurring virtually and inperson. Then, leaders can commit to and advertise a set number of semesterly virtual and oncampus faculty mixer events to highlight a university value of community and belonging. In
addition, leaders can allocate personnel resources (e.g., a staff member) to manage virtual
audience engagement for university events with an online audience. Given the importance of onsite opportunities for connection and relationship-building, leaders can adjust travel policies and
budgets to extend hybrid faculty on-campus immersion travel by one or two days at the start or
end of immersion to enhance in-person community-building. Leaders should explicitly state the
rationale and goals for extended travel as it relates to connection and belonging. Finally, leaders
should monitor hybrid faculty attendance at on-site and virtual social events, as well as faculty
use of extended travel options, to substantiate or change future financial allocations.
Limitations and Delimitations
Several limitations and delimitations applied to this study. Limitations are aspects of the
study design that are outside of the researcher’s control and may influence the credibility of the
results and conclusions (Theofanidis & Fountouki, 2018). First, I am a novice qualitative
researcher. As such, I am still learning the art of qualitative questioning, probing, and analysis.
Second, this was a qualitative field study of 15 hybrid physical therapy faculty members. Both
qualitative methodology and the sample size limits generalizability of results to broader faculty

119
populations. Third, I relied on interview participants to be open and honest in sharing their
experiences and beliefs. It is possible that the questions asked, or language utilized, influenced
the subjects’ ability to share the desired information. Social desirability bias may also impact
truthfulness (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). Fourth, belonging is a unique and transient feeling that
is environment dependent and experienced differently by individuals across different time points
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Lim et al., 2021). It is possible that subjects described factors that
supported belonging or detracted from belonging at one point in time that do not apply to another
environment or time point (Lim et al., 2021). In addition to limitations, several delimitations
need to be acknowledged for this study.
The parameters set for bounding the study created some delimitations. Delimitations
define the study’s scope and are within my control as the researcher (Theofanidis & Fountouki,
2018). The study focused on the experience of full-time hybrid physical therapy faculty,
therefore faculty teaching face-to-face, faculty with solely remote appointments, and faculty with
part-time appointments were excluded. A focus on full-time faculty was important due to the
established, unique belonging concerns of part-time and adjunct faculty in higher education
(Gappa et al., 2007; Haviland et al., 2020; Kezar, 2012). Qualitative methodology limited
generalizability of the results but provided a deeper understanding of individual participant
experiences (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The small number of hybrid physical therapy curricular
models and the small percentage of full-time hybrid faculty within programs necessitated subject
recruitment from several DPT programs across the United States. A single methodology of semistructured interviews was utilized due to time constraints along with purposive, snowball
sampling. This sampling method rooted in leveraging professional networks was necessary due
to the lack of systematic data collection about hybrid physical therapy curricular methods by the

120
national accrediting body, CAPTE (CAPTE, 2021). The interview time limit of sixty minutes
may have restricted the depth of participant responses, but balanced the time constraints of study
participants and the primary researcher.
Recommendations for Future Research
There is a dearth of literature currently exploring belonging among academic faculty,
especially academic faculty of health professions education programs. Research is plentiful
related to student belonging in primary, secondary, and undergraduate levels, and is emerging at
the graduate school level. Future research with larger samples is needed to establish a broader
understanding academic faculty sense of belonging across academic ranks, from in-person to
hybrid to fully remote roles, and spanning different professional training programs. Additionally,
research on the belonging experience of diverse faculty from under-represented populations in
physical therapy and health professions education across virtual and in-person models is needed,
especially given the current problem of diverse faculty underrepresentation in the profession. It is
unclear what the impact of DPT program proliferation and national faculty shortages mean for
physical therapy faculty belonging across teaching environments. More research exploring
different curricular models and their impact on faculty and student belonging is necessary.
Finally, the impact of physical therapy faculty belonging on faculty and student performance,
retention, and satisfaction is an important area for future research.
Conclusion
The study’s findings are needed and timely. The academic physical therapy landscape is
likened to “storm clouds on the horizon” due to rapid proliferation of new programs in addition
to faculty shortages (Deusinger & Landers, 2022, p. 1). The experience of hybrid faculty in
academia, especially physical therapy, is mostly unknown. This study found that full-time,

121
hybrid physical therapy faculty valued and perceived belonging at work, but it required
awareness and effort. Looking forward, hybrid faculty must embrace opportunities for
meaningful, personal, human connection with others. Hybrid faculty must actively invest in
belonging through prioritizing people, demonstrating person-centered communication, and
enacting self-advocacy. Hybrid faculty and program directors must advocate for collegiality and
accessibility within work relationships from individuals to micro-teams and the broader physical
therapy department and university.
The voices of participants underscored that the academic environment, specifically
organizational culture and structure, are critical to perceived belonging. At an organizational
level, hybrid faculty must be embraced within their department through a culture of inclusivity.
Hybrid faculty must be recognized and celebrated by the department and broader organization.
The current national academic physical therapy landscape threatens inclusive culture due to
structures that naturally exclude. As the new program, the only hybrid program, or the one
graduate program, DPT programs are structurally positioned as an “other.” Similarly, in existing
DPT programs that are expanding curricula to include hybrid models, there stands the potential
divide between on-campus and hybrid faculty, staff, and students as well as the innate challenge
of instilling meaningful personal interactions within a large sized department. The findings
provide an important reminder that belonging is about more than just people skills; belonging
depends on the perception of fit within a broader environmental context.
If belonging is truly a basic human need, and care and connection are really the root of
the physical therapy profession, then prioritizing people (hybrid faculty) within work tasks in
academic physical therapy departments should be easy. Yet it will rely on awareness and action

122
from faculty themselves, academic communities, and leaders to commit to belonging as an
essential element of hybrid faculty work.

123
References
ACAPT Center for Excellence in Academic Physical Therapy. (2022). 2022 institutional profile
survey report. https://acapt.org/resources/excellence/institutional-profile-survey/2022-
institutional-profile-survey-report-from-acapt-center-for-excellence-in-academicphysical-thearpy
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in
the United States. Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED541571
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2016). Online report card: Tracking online education in the United
States. Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED572777
Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2012). Conflicted: Faculty and online education. Inside Higher Ed
and Babson Survey Research Group.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/survey/conflicted-faculty-and-online-education-2012
Allen, K., Gray, D. L., Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (2022). The need to belong: A deep
dive into the origins, implications, and future of a foundational construct. Educational
Psychology Review, 34(2), https://doi.org/1133-1156. 10.1007/s10648-021-09633-6
Allen, K., Kern, M. L., Rozek, C. S., McInerney, D. M., & Slavich, G. M. (2021). Belonging: a
review of conceptual issues, an integrative framework, and directions for future research.
Australian Journal of Psychology, 73(1), 87-102.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530.2021.1883409

124
Allen, K., Vella-Brodrick, D., & Waters, L. (2016). Fostering school belonging in secondary
schools using a socio-ecological framework. The Australian Educational and
Developmental Psychologist, 33(1), 97-121. https://doi.org/10.1017/edp.2016.5
American Council of Academic Physical Therapy (ACAPT). (2021, May 3). Future of physical
therapist education programs in higher education. https://acapt.org/news/newsdetail/2021/05/03/future-of-physical-therapist-education-programs-in-higher-education
American Physical Therapy Association. (2010). Code of ethics for the physical therapist.
https://aptawi.org/pdfs/ethics/PT%20Code%20of%20Ethics.pdf
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist, 44(9),
1175-1184.
Baum, S., & McPherson, M. (2019). The human factor: The promise & limits of online
education. Daedalus, 148(4), 235-254. https://10.1162/daed_a_01769
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497-
529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
Bedford, L., DiTommaso Downs, L., & McDowell, M. (2021). Coaching for professional
development for online higher education faculty: an explanatory case study. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 24(3).
https://ojdla.com/archive/fall243/bedford_downs_mcdowell243.html
Bennie, S. S., & Rodriguez, T. E. (2019). Characteristics of entry-level physical therapist
education program directors. Journal of Physical Therapy Education, 33(1), 70-77.
https://doi.org/10.1097/JTE.0000000000000081

125
BetterUp (2021). The value of belonging at work: New frontiers for inclusion in 2021 and
beyond. https://grow.betterup.com/resources/the-value-of-belonging-at-work-thebusiness-case-for-investing-in-workplace-inclusion
Betts, K., & Heaston, A. (2014). Build it but will they teach? Strategies for increasing faculty
participation and retention in online & blended education. Online Journal of Distance
Learning Administration, 17(2).
Blackinton, M. (2013). Teaching a "hands-on" profession in an online classroom. PT in Motion,
5(10), 16.
Blackinton, M. (2020). Focus on online instruction [Video]. American Council of Academic
Physical Therapy. www.acapt.org/videos/default-source/repository/acapt-faq-online.mp4
Bliss, R., Brueilly, K. E., Swiggum, M. S., Morris, G. S., & Williamson, E. M. (2018).
Importance of terminal academic degreed core faculty in physical therapist education.
Journal of Physical Therapy Education, 32(2), 123-127.
https://doi.org/10.1097/JTE.0000000000000054
Blundell, G. E., Castañeda, D. A., & Lee, J. (2020). A multi-institutional study of factors
influencing faculty satisfaction with online teaching and learning. Online Learning,
24(4), 229-253. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v24i4.2175
Bogdan, R. C., Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative data. Qualitative research for education (5th Ed.,
pp. 117-133). Pearson.
Bollinger D. U., & Wasilik O. (2009). Factors influencing faculty satisfaction with online
teaching and learning in higher education. Distance Education, 30(1), 103-116.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910902845949

126
Boucher, B., Robertson, E., Wainner, R., & Sanders, B. (2013). “Flipping” Texas State
University’s physical therapist musculoskeletal curriculum: Implementation of a hybrid
learning model. Journal of Physical Therapy Education, 27(3), 72-77.
Bowens, A. N., Ford, D. J., & Boggs, O. M. (2021). Job satisfaction and retention among
physical therapist education program directors. Journal of Physical Therapy Education,
35(2), 95-102. https://doi.org/10.1097/JTE.0000000000000176
Brewer, M. B. (2007). The importance of being we: Human nature and intergroup relations. The
American Psychologist, 62(8), 728-738. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.8.728
Brindley, J. & Zawacki-Richter, O. (2003). Support services for online faculty: The provider and
the user perspective. In U. Bernath & E. Rubin (Eds). Reflections on teaching and
learning in an online masters program: A case study (pp. 137-165). Bibliotheks und
Informationssytem der Universitat Oldenburg. http://www.c3l.unioldenburg.de/cde/series/joj130.pdf
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American
Psychologist, 32(7), 513-531. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.32.7.513
Bruce, L. D., Wu, J. S., Lustig, S. L., Russell, D. W., & Nemecek, D. A. (2019). Loneliness in
the United States: A 2018 national panel survey of demographic, structural, cognitive,
and behavioral characteristics. American Journal of Health Promotion, 33(8), 1123-1133.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0890117119856551
Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (1999). First break all the rules. Simon and Schuster.
Buffer. (2022). 2022 State of remote work. https://buffer.com/state-of-remote-work/2022

127
Bunk, J., Li, R., Smidt, E., Bidetti, C., & Malize, B. (2015). Understanding faculty attitudes
about distance education: The importance of excitement and fear. Online Learning, 19(4),
1-11.
Burke, M. (2009). Loneliness can kill you. Forbes, 184(3), 22-23.
Butters, D. & Gann, C. (2022). Towards professionalism in higher education: An exploratory
case study of struggles and needs of online adjunct professors. Online Learning, 26(3),
259-273. http://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v26i3.2801
Byrd, M. Y. (2022). Creating a culture of inclusion and belongingness in remote work
environments that sustains meaningful work. Human Resource Development
International, 25(2), 145-162. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2022.2047252
Carr, E. W., Reece, A., Kellerman, G. R., & Robichaux, A. (2019, December 16). The value of
belonging at work. Harvard Business Review, https://hbr.org/2019/12/the-value-ofbelonging-at-work
Christopher, K. (2021). Organizational strategies for building community among remote adjunct
faculty. In: A. Dailey-Hebert, B. J. Mandernach, E. Donnelli-Sallee (Eds). Handbook of
research on inclusive development for remote adjunct faculty in higher education, IGI
Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-6758-6
Cigna. (2020). Loneliness and the workplace: 2020 U.S. report.
https://www.cigna.com/static/www-cigna-com/docs/about-us/newsroom/studies-andreports/combatting-loneliness/cigna-2020-loneliness-report.pdf
Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education (CAPTE). (2020a). Aggregate
program data: 2019 physical therapist education programs factsheets.

128
https://www.capteonline.org/globalassets/capte-docs/aggregate-data/2019-2020-
aggregate-pta-program-data.pdf
Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education (CAPTE). (2020b). Standards and
required elements for accreditation of physical therapist education programs.
https://www.capteonline.org/globalassets/capte-docs/capte-pt-standards-requiredelements.pdf
Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education (CAPTE). (2021). Aggregate
program data: 2020 physical therapist education programs factsheets.
https://www.capteonline.org/globalassets/capte-docs/aggregate-data/2020-2021-
aggregate-pt-program-and-salary-data.pdf
Coqual. (2020). The power of belonging. https://coqual.org/reports/the-power-of-belonging/
Costello, E., Ruckert, E., Lyons, L., Cotton, L., & Birkmeier, M. (2017). To treat or not to treat:
The use of computer-assisted learning to enhance clinical decision making and selfefficacy of student physical therapists in the acute care setting. Journal of Physical
Therapy Education, 31(3), 27-36.
Creswell, J. W. & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed
methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Cutri, R., M., & Mena, J. (2020). A critical reconceptualization of faculty readiness for online
teaching. Distance Education, 41(3), 361-380.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2020.1763167
Del Bello-Haas, V., Proctor, P., & Scudds, R. (2013). Comparison of knowledge and knowledge
application confidence in physical therapist students completing a traditional blended
learning professional issues course. Journal of Physical Therapy Education, 27(1), 10-19.

129
Deusinger, S. S. & Landers, M. R. (2022). Storm clouds on the horizon: The 3 perils of
unconstrainted academic growth in physical therapist education. Physical Therapy, 102:
1-6.
Dinu, L. M., Dommett, E. J., Baykoca, A., Mehta, K. J., Everett, S., Foster, J. L. H., & Byrom,
N. C. (2021). A case study investigating mental wellbeing of university academics during
the COVID-19 pandemic. Education Sciences, 11(11), 702.
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11110702
Dolan V. (2011). The isolation of online adjunct faculty and its impact on their performance.
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(2), 1-17.
Dumont, G., Ni, A. Y., Van Wart, M., Beck, C., & Pei, H. (2021). The effect of the COVID
pandemic on faculty adoption of online teaching: reduced resistance but strong persistent
concerns. Cogent Education, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2021.1976928
Elliott, M., Rhoades, N., Jackson, C. & Mandernach, B. J. (2015). Professional development:
Designing initiatives to meet the needs of online faculty. Journal of Educators Online,
12(1). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1051031.pdf
Ferencz, T. L. S. (2017). Shared perceptions of online adjunct faculty in the United States who
have a high sense of community. Journal of Online Educators, 14(2).
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1150582.pdf
Flynn, M., Maiden, R. P., Smith, W., Wiley, J., & Wood, G. (2013). Launching the Virtual
Academic Center: Issues and Challenges in Innovation. Journal of Teaching in Social
Work, 33(4-5), 339–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2013.843364

130
Fosselin L., & West-Duffy, M. (2019, February 8). How to create belonging for remote workers.
MIT Sloan Management Review. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/how-to-createbelonging-for-remote-workers/
Fristedt, S. (2021). Communication, collaboration and belongingness in virtual teams
[Bachelor’s thesis, Malmo Universitet]. DiVA Digitala Vetenskapliga Arkivet.
https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1528622/FULLTEXT02.pdf
Fuchs, K. (2022). The Difference Between Emergency Remote Teaching and e-Learning.
Frontiers in Education, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.921332
Gagnon, K., Young, B., Bachman, T., Longbottom, T., Severin, R., & Walker, M. J. (2020).
Doctor of Physical Therapy education in a hybrid learning environment: Reimagining the
possibilities and navigating a “new normal”. Physical Therapy, 100(8), 1268-1277.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzaa096
Gagnon, K., Bachman, T., Beuning, B., Koppenhaver, S., Unverzagt, C., Feda, J., Gantt, C., &
Young, B. (2022). Doctor of physical therapy education in a hybrid learning environment: A
case report. Physical Therapy, 102(8). https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzac074
Gallagher, S. R. (2018). Educational credentials come of age. Northeastern University Center for
the Future of Higher Education and Talent Strategy. https://cps.northeastern.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2021/03/Educational_Credentials_Come_of_Age_2018.pdf
Gappa, J. M., Austin, A. E., & Trice, A. G. (2007). Rethinking faculty work. John Wiley & Sons.
Garrett, R., Legon, R., & Fredericksen, E. E. (2020). CHLOE 4: Navigating the mainstream. E.
E. Fredericksen (Ed). Quality Matters & Eduventures. https://www.qualitymatters.org/qaresources/resource-center/articles-resources/CHLOE-4-report-2020
Garrett, R., Legon, R., & Fredericksen, E. E. (2019). CHLOE 3: Behind the numbers. E. E.
Fredericksen (Ed). Quality Matters & Eduventures.

131
https://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/research-docs-pdfs/CHLOE-3-Report2019-Behind-the-Numbers.pdf
Garvin, K. (2022, February 22). How the psychological risks of remote work can impact
belonging and inclusivity at work. Ten Spot. https://tenspot.com/blog/how-thepsychological-risks-of-remote-work-can-impact-belonging-and-inclusivity-at-work/
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers. (4th Ed). Pearson.
Glint. (May 2021). Employee well-being report. https://www.glintinc.com/resource/employeewell-being-report-may-2021/
Goh, P. H., Mepham, J., Eastwood, B., & Skinner, M. (2022). An investigation of the
experiences of physiotherapists during the Aotearoa New Zealand COVID-19 pandemic
2020. New Zealand Journal of Physiotherapy, 50(3), 133–149.
https://doi.org/10.15619/NZJP/50.3.05
Gordon, J. (2014). Wanted: Effective academic leadership. Journal of Physical Therapy, 28(1),
45-47.
Green, K. C. (2019). 2019 Campus Computing. The Campus Computing Project.
https://www.campuscomputing.net/content/2019/10/15/the-2019-campus-computingsurvey
Greenhow, C., Graham, C. R., & Koehler, M. J. (2022). Foundations of online learning:
Challenges and opportunities. Educational Psychologist, 57(3), 131-147.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2022.2090364
Hadley, C. N. & Mortensen, M. (2020, December 8). Are your team members lonely? MIT Sloan
Management Review, https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/are-your-team-members-lonely/

132
Harting, K. & Erthal, M. J. (2005). History of distance learning. Information Technology,
Learning, and Performance Journal, 23(1), 35–44.
Harvard Business Review Analytic Services. (9 September, 2021). Creating a culture of
diversity, equity and inclusion: Real progress requires sustained commitment.
https://hbr.org/resources/pdfs/comm/trusaic/CreatingDEIculture.pdf
Haviland, D., Alleman, N. F., & Allen, C. C. (2017). ‘Separate but not equal’: Collegiality
experiences of full-time non-tenure track faculty members. Journal of Higher Education,
88(4), 505-528. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2016.1272321
Haviland, D., Jacobs, J., Alleman, N. F., & Allen, C. C. (2020). Inclusive Collegiality and
Nontenure-Track Faculty. Stylus publishing.
Hebert, E., Wood, R., Jeon, K., & Reena, I. (2022). Faculty making the emergency online
transition during the COVID-19 pandemic: the effects of prior online teaching experience
and strategies used to learn to teach online. Higher Learning Research Communications,
12(0). https://doi.org/10.18870/hlrc.V12i0.1322
Hill, N. S. (2023). Leadership Strategies for the Hybrid Workforce. MIT Sloan Management
Review, 64(3), 1-4.
Hill, N.S., & Bartol, K.M. (2018, June 23). Five Ways to Improve Communication in Virtual
Teams. MIT Sloan Management Review, 60(1), 1-5.
Hinman, M. R., & Brown, T. (2017). Changing profile of the physical therapy professoriate--are
we meeting CAPTE's expectations? Journal of Physical Therapy Education, 31(4), 95-
104. https://doi.org/10.1097/JTE.0000000000000015
Hinman, M., Peel, C., & Price, E. (2014). Leadership retention in physical therapy education
programs. Journal of Physical Therapy Education, 28(1), 39-44.

133
Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., Baker, M., Harris, T., Stephenson, D. (2015). Loneliness and
social isolation as risk factors for mortality: a meta-analytic review. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 10(2), 227-237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614568352
Holt, K. E. & Clements, P. T. (2021). Constructing online equity for adjunct faculty who teach
across geography. In: A. Dailey-Hebert, B. J. Mandernach, E. Donnelli-Sallee (Eds).
Handbook of research on inclusive development for remote adjunct faculty in higher
education, IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-6.ch014
House Committee on Education and the Workforce Democratic Staff. (January 2014). The JustIn-Time Professor: A staff report summarizing eForum responses on the working
conditions of contingent faculty in higher education.
Inside Higher Ed. (2021). 2021 Survey of College and University Presidents.
https://www.insidehighered.com/sites/default/files/2023-08/IHE_2021-PresidentsSurvey.pdf
Jaschik S. & Lederman, D. (2019). 2019 Survey of Faculty Attitudes on Technology. Inside
Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/booklet/2019-survey-faculty-attitudestechnology
Jasgur, C. (2023). Tips for managing a remote workforce. Journal of Business Continuity &
Emergency Planning, 16(4), 346-358.
Jeffries, P. R., Bushardt, R. L., Dubose-Morris, R., Hood, C., Kardong-Edgren, S., Pintz, C.,
Posey, L., & Sikka, N. (2022). The role of technology in health professions education
during the COVID-19 pandemic. Academic Medicine, 97(3), S104-S109.
https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000004523

134
Johnson, N., Veletsianos, G., Reitzik, O., & VanLeeuwen, C. (2022). Faculty perceptions of
online education and technology use over time: A secondary analysis of the annual
survey of faculty attitudes on technology from 2013-2019. Online Learning Journal,
26(3), 293-310.
Johnson, R. B. & Christensen, L. (2014). Educational research: quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches. (5th Ed). Sage.
Kaufman, R. R. (2009). Career factors help predict productivity in scholarship among faculty
members in physical therapist education programs. Physical Therapy, 89(3), 204–216.
https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20080076
Kentnor, H. E. (2015). Distance education and the evolution of online learning in the United
States. Curriculum and Teaching Dialogue, 17(1-2), S21.
Kezar, A. (2012). Needed policies, practices and values: creating a culture to support and
professionalize non-tenure track faculty. In A. Kezar (Ed). Embracing non-tenure track
faculty. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203828434
King, F. B., Smith, B. C., & Mathews, M. B. (2006). Health professions’ education and practice:
A commentary on transformation through the internet. Journal of Allied Health, 35(3),
174–178.
Knight, C., Olaru, D., Lee, J. A., & Parker, S. K. (2022, May 2). The loneliness of the hybrid
worker, https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/the-loneliness-of-the-hybrid-worker/
Lazinski, M. J. (2017). Psychomotor skills, physical therapy, and a hybrid course: A case study.
The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 18(4), 57-69.
Lederman, D. (2020, March 18). Will shift to remote teaching be boon or bane for online
learning? Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-

135
learning/article/2020/03/18/most-teaching-going-remote-will-help-or-hurt-onlinelearning
Legon, R., & Garrett, R. (2017). The changing landscape of online education (CHLOE). Quality
Matters & Eduventures. https://www.qualitymatters.org/sites/default/files/research-docspdfs/CHLOE-First-Survey-Report.pdf
Lewis, L., Snow, K., Farris, E., Levin, D., & Greene, B. (1999). Distance education at postsecondary education institutions: 1997-1998. U. S. Department of Education Office of
Educational Research and Improvement. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2000/2000013.pdf
Lieberman, M. (2018, March 14). Overcoming faculty resistance – or not. Inside Higher
Education. https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2018/03/14/expertsoffer-advice-convincing-faculty-members-teach-online-or
Lim, M. H., Allen, K., Furlong, M. J., Craig, H., & Smith, D. C. (2021). Introducing a dual
continuum model of belonging and loneliness. Australian Journal of Psychology, 73(1),
81-86. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530.2021.1883411
Lloyd, S. A., Byrne, M. M., & McCoy, T. S. (2012). Faculty-perceived barriers of online
education. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 8(1), 1.
Lovegrove, N. C. (2020, December 22). 3 tenants of a remote culture. Harvard Business Review.
https://hbr.org/2020/12/3-tenets-of-a-strong-remote-culture
Luedtke-Hoffman, K., Petterborg, L., Cross, S., Rappleye, H., Stafford, L., & Weiser, L. (2010).
Preparation of academic administrators in physical therapist education programs: is more
needed? Journal of Physical Therapy Education, 24(2), 4-13.
Luongo, N., & O’Brien, S. T. (2018). Empowering faculty using distance learning mentoring
programs. Journal on Empowering Teaching Excellence, 2(2).

136
Macznik, A. K., Ribeiro, D. C., & Baxter, G. D. (2015). Online technology use in physiotherapy
teaching and learning: A systematic review of effectiveness and users’ perceptions. BMC
Medical Education, 15,160. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-015-0429-8
Maguire, L. L. (2005). Literature review- Faculty participation in online distance education:
barriers and motivators. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, III(I).
Maier, L. (2012). What are online faculty telling us about building community? Community
College Journal of Research and Practice, 36(11), 884-896.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2012.679463
Majsak, M. J., Hall, C. A., Kirsch, N. R., Krencicki, D. B., Locke, E., & Hyland, N. (2022).
Physical therapy education program faculty challenges, concerns, and priorities during
the COVID-19 pandemic: looking back and moving forward. Journal of Physical
Therapy Education, 36(2), 97-106. https://doi.org/10.1097/JTE.0000000000000228
Mansbach, J., & Austin, A. E. (2018). Nuanced perspectives about online teaching: Mid-Career
and senior faculty voices reflecting on academic work in the digital age. Innovative
Higher Education, 43(4), 257-272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-018-9424-4
Maring, J., Costello, E., & Plack, M. M. (2008). Student outcomes in a pathophysiology course
based on mode of delivery: distance versus traditional classroom learning. Journal of
Physical Therapy Education, 22(1), 24-32.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346
McClure, J. P., & Brown, J. M. (2008). Belonging at work. Human Resource Development
International, 11(1), 3-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678860701782261

137
Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of evidencebased practices in online learning: a meta-analysis and review of online learning studies.
U.S. Department of Education. https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-basedpractices/finalreport.pdf
Mental Health America (2022). 2023 The State of Mental Health in America.
https://mhanational.org/issues/state-mental-health-america
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Moore, J. L., Dickson-Deane, C., & Galyen, K. (2011). e-Learning, online learning, and distance
learning environments: Are they the same? The Internet and Higher Education, 14(2),
129-135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.10.001
Morgan, K. P. (2018). Describing the emperor's new clothes: Three myths of educational (in-)
equity. In The Gender Question in Education (pp. 105-122). Routledge.
Morisawa, Nishizaki, Y., Irie, Y., Nojiri, S., Matsuo, T., Kobayashi, D., Daida, H., Minamino,
T., & Takahashi, T. (2022). Association between physiotherapist burnout and working
environment during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic in Japan: A multicenter
observational study. PloS One, 17(9), e0275415.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275415
Morrison-Smith, S., & Ruiz, J. (2020). Challenges and barriers in virtual teams: a literature
review. SN Applied Sciences, 2(6), 1096. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-020-2801-5
Morton, D. R. (2012) Adjunct faculty embraced: the institution’s responsibility. Christian
Education Journal, 9(2), 396-407. https://doi.org/10.1177/073989131200900211

138
Mueller, B., Mandernach, B. J., & Sanderson, K. (2013). Adjunct versus full-time faculty:
Comparison of student outcomes in the online classroom. MERLOT Journal of Online
Teaching and Learning, 9(3), 341-352.
Murray, L., McCallum, C., & Petrosino, C. (2015). Flipping the classroom experience: A
comparison of online learning to traditional lecture. Journal of Physical Therapy
Education, 28(3), 35-41.
Murthy, V. (2017, September 26). Work and the loneliness epidemic. Harvard Business Review,
https://hbr.org/2017/09/work-and-the-loneliness-epidemic
Naciri, A., Radid, M., Kharbach, A., & Chemsi, G. (2021). E-learning in health professions
education during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review. Journal of Educational
Evaluation for Health Professions, 18, 27. https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2021.18.27
NCES Blog. (2021). Distance education in college: What do we know from IPEDS? National
Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/blogs/nces/post/distance-education-incollege-what-do-we-know-from-ipeds
Ng, L., Seow, K. C., MacDonald, L., Correia, C., Reubenson, A., Gardner, P., Spence, A. L.,
Bunzli, S., & De Oliveira, B. I. R. (2021). eLearning in physical therapy: Lessons learned
from transitioning a professional education program to full eLearning during the COVID19 pandemic. Physical Therapy, 101(4), 1-. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzab082Nuciforo,
M. A. (2015). Minority applicants to physical therapist education programs 2010-2012.
Physical Therapy, 95(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.2522/Ptj.20130585
Nguyen, M. H., Gruber, J., Marler, W., Hunsaker, A., Fuchs, J., & Hargittai, E. (2022). Staying
connected while physically apart: Digital communication when face-to-face interactions

139
are limited. New Media & Society, 24(9), 2046-2067.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820985442
Nuciforo, M. A. (2015). Minority applicants to physical therapist education programs 2010-
2012. Phys Ther, 95(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.2522/Ptj.20130585
Online Physical Therapy Programs with edX. (2022). Choosing an online physical therapy
program. 2U. https://onlinephysicaltherapyprograms.com/
Ong, A. D., Uchino, B. N., & Wethington, E. (2016). Loneliness and health in older adults: A
mini-review and synthesis. Gerontology, 62, 443-449. https://doi.org/10.1159/000441651
Owl Labs and Global Workplace Analytics. (2021). State of remote work 2021.
https://owllabs.com/state-of-remote-work/2021
Pagliarulo, M. A. & Lynn, A. (2002). Needs assessment of faculty in professional-level physical
therapist education programs: Implications for development. Journal of Physical Therapy
Education, 16(2), 16–23. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001416-200207000-00004
Pagliarulo, M. A., & Lynn, A. (2004). Priorities and Benchmarks for New Faculty in Physical
Therapist Education Programs. Journal of Allied Health, 33(4), 271–277.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Interviewing. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods
(4th Ed). Sage.
Pisaniello, M. S., Asahina, A. T., Bacchi, S., Wagner, M., Perry, S. W., Wong, M.L., & Licinio, J.
(2019). Effect of medical student debt on mental health, academic performance, and specialty
choice: a systematic review. BMJ Open, 9, e029980. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-
029980
Plack, M. M. & Wong, C. K. (2002). The evolution of the doctorate of physical therapy: moving
beyond the controversy. Journal of Physical Therapy Education, 16(1), 48–59.

140
Plack, M. M., Healey, W. E., Huhn, K., Costello, E., Maring, J., & Hilliard, M. J. (2021). Navigating
student challenges: From the lens of first-year doctor of physical therapy students. Journal of
Physical Therapy Education, 36(1), 76-86. https://doi.org/10.1097/JTE.0000000000000212
Plummer, L., Belgen Kaygısız, B., Pessoa Kuehner, C., Gore, S., Mercuro, R., Chatiwala, N., &
Naidoo, K. (2021). Teaching online during the covid-19 pandemic: A phenomenological
study of physical therapist faculty in Brazil, Cyprus, and the United States. Education
Sciences, 11(3). https://doi.org/130. 10.3390/educsci11030130
Plummer, L., Smith, L., Cornforth, E., & Gore, S. (2021). Teaching psychomotor skills in a
virtual environment: An educational case study. Education Sciences, 11(9), 537.
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11090537
Pniak, B., Leszczak, J., Adamczyk, M., Rusek, W., Matosz, P., & Guzik, A. (2021).
Occupational burnout among active physiotherapists working in clinical hospitals during
the COVID-19 pandemic in south-eastern Poland. Work, 68(2), 285–295.
https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-203375
Pomerantz, J., & Brooks, D. C. (2017). ECAR study of faculty and information technology.
Educause. https://www.educause.edu/ecar/research-publications/ecar-study-of-facultyand-information-technology/2017/introduction-and-key-findings
Preston, E., Ada, L., Dean, C. M., Stanton, R., Waddington, G., & Canning, C. (2012). The
Physiotherapy eSkills Training Online resource improves performance of practical skills:
a controlled trial. BMC Medical Education, 12, 119. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-
12-119
Rath, T., & Conchie, B. (2009). Strengths-based leadership: Great leaders, teams and why
people follow. Gallup.

141
Qualtrics. (2021). 2021 Employee experience trends. https://success.qualtrics.com/rs/542-FMF412/images/Qualtrics-2021-Employee%20Experience-Trends.pdf
Robinson, S. B. & Leonard, K. F. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. Sage.
Rothstein, J. (1998). Education at the crossroads: For today’s practice, the DPT. Physical
Therapy, 78(4), 358-360.
Ruckert, E., MacDonald, P. L., Birkmeier, M., Walker, B., Cotton, L., Lyons, L. B., Straker, H.
O., & Plack, M. M. (2014). Using technology to promote active and social learning
experiences in health professions education. Online Learning Journal, 18(4).
http://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v18i4.515
Sacco, D. F., & Ismail, M. M. (2014). Social belongingness satisfaction as a function of
interaction medium: Face-to-face interactions facilitate greater social belonging and
interaction enjoyment compared to instant messaging. Computers in Human Behavior,
36, 359-364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.004
Saha, S. M., Pranty, S. A., Rana, M. J., Islam, M. J., & Hossain, M. E. (2022). Teaching during a
pandemic: do university teachers prefer online teaching? Heliyon, 8(1), e08663.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08663
Schaberg, C. (2018, March 7). Why I won’t teach online. Inside Higher Education.
https://www.insidehighered.con/digital-learning/views/2018/03/07/professor-explainswhy-he-wont-teach-online-opinion
Schunk, D. H., & Usher, E. L. (2019). Social cognitive theory and motivation. In R. M. Ryan,
(Ed), The Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation (2nd ed). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190666453.013.2

142
Schwartz, S. L., Weiss, E. L, & Wiley, J. L. (2018). Innovative strategies for building
community among faculty who teach in virtual environments. Advances in Social Work,
18(4), 1103-1112. https://doi.org/10.18060/21619
Schwartz, S. L., Wiley, J. L., & Kaplan, C. D. (2016). Community-building in a virtual teaching
environment. Advances in Social Work, 17(1), 15-30. https://doi.org/10.18060/20875
Scott, T. T. (2012). Innovators and laggards? Faculty adoption of online distance education.
[Doctoral dissertation, University of Nevada, Las Vegas]. UNLV Theses, Dissertations,
Professional Papers, and Capstones.
https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/thesesdissertations/1774/
Seaman, J. E., Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2018). Grade increase: Tracking distance education in
the United States. Babson Research Group. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED580852
Seaman, J. E., & Seaman, J. (2022). Turning point for digital curricula: Educational resources
in U.S. Higher Education, 2022. Bay View Analytics. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED622348
Shea, P. (2008). Bridges and barriers to teaching online college courses: a study of experienced
online faculty in thirty-six colleges. Online Learning, 11(2).
https://doi.org/10.24059/olf.v11i2.1728
Sherron, G.T. & Boettcher, J. V. (1997). Distance learning: The shift to interactivity.
EDUCAUSE Publications. https://library.educause.edu/resources/1997/1/distancelearning-the-shift-to-interactivity
Shields, R. K. & Dudley-Javoroski, S. (2021). Benchmarking in academic physical therapy: A
multicenter trial using the PT-GQ survey. Physical Therapy, 101(12), 1-.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzab229

143
Smith, W. B. (2015). Relational dimensions of virtual social work education: Mentoring faculty
in a web-based learning environment. Clinical Social Work Journal, 43(2), 236-245.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-014-0510-5
Steele, C. M., Spencer, S. J., & Aronson, J. (2002). Contending with group image: The
psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 34, 379-440.
Swisher, A. K., & Mandich, M. (2002). The use of distance education for a bachelor's degree to
master's degree transition program in physical therapy. Journal of Allied Health, 31(4),
217-21.
Talib, M. A., Bettayeb, A. M., & Omer, R. I. (2021). Analytical study on the impact of
technology in higher education during the age of COVID-19: Systematic literature
review. Education and Information Technologies, 26(6), 6719-6746.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10507-1
Terosky, A. L., & Heasley, C. (2015). Supporting online faculty through a sense of community
and collegiality. Online Learning, 19(3), 147-161. http://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v19i3.473
The White House (2022, March 1). FACT SHEET: President Biden to announce strategy to
address our national mental health crisis, as part of unity agenda in his first state of the
union [Policy Brief]. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statementsreleases/2022/03/01/fact-sheet-president-biden-to-announce-strategy-to-address-ournational-mental-health-crisis-as-part-of-unity-agenda-in-his-first-state-of-the-union/
Theofanidis, D. & Fountouki, A. (2018). Limitations and delimitations in the research process.
Perioperative Nursing, 7(3), 155-162. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2552022

144
Thiele, A. K., Mai, J. A., & Post, S. (2014). The student-centered classroom of the 21st century:
Integrating Web 2.0 applications and other technology to actively engage students.
Journal of Physical Therapy Education, 28(1), 80–93. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001416-
201410000-00014
Tilson, J., Teglia, V., Long, D., Rancour, J., Stevenson, J., Simpson, M., Nelsen, M., &
Andersen, M. (2023, October 13-15). Hybrid education is not accelerated education:
Opportunities, challenges, and outcomes in full-length hybrid DPT education
[Conference session]. APTA Education Leadership Conference, Philadelphia, PA, United
States. https://www.aptaeducation.org/abstract-archive#search2/view-accepted-proposaldetails/65a9909d952ed5003844bf30/
Toner, J., Reyes, M., Schwartz, S. L., Parga, J., & Ryan, T. (2021). Emerging issues with remote
faculty. Journal of Social Work Education, 1-11.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2021.1957737
Tsipursky, G. (2022, October 4). What is proximity bias and how can managers prevent it?
Harvard Business Review, https://hbr.org/2022/10/what-is-proximity-bias-and-how-canmanagers-prevent-it
Tucker, L. (2022). Faculty PLCs for maintaining community and online teaching during remote
work. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 25(1).
https://ojdla.com/articles/faculty-plcs-for-maintaining-community-and-online-teachingduring-remote-work
Unverzagt, C., Young, B., & Gagnon, K. (2020, May). The Nuts and Bolts of Implementing a
Lab Immersion [Webinar]. American Council of Academic Physical Therapy.

145
www.acapt.org/events/webinar-information/2020/06/22/free-recording-available-now-the
-nuts-and-bolts-of-implementing-a-lab-immersion-webinar
Varnado, K. E., Bierwas, D. A., & Alexander, J. L. (2021). Exploring factors related to job
satisfaction among junior faculty in US physical therapist education programs. Journal of
Physical Therapy Education, 35(4), 270-278.
https://doi.org/10.1097/JTE.0000000000000199
Veneri, D. (2011). The role and effectiveness of computer-assisted learning in physical therapy
education: A systematic review. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, 27(4), 287-298.
https://doi.org/10.3109/09593985.2010.493192
Veneri, D. A., & Gannotti, M. (2014). A comparison of student outcomes in a physical therapy
neurologic rehabilitation course based on delivery mode: hybrid vs traditional. Journal of
Allied Health, 43(4), e75-e81.
Volansky, K. (2019). Physical therapist educators’ perceptions of the benefits and challenges to
teach “hands-on” skills in a blended environment. Quarterly Review of Distance
Education, 20(3), 11-52.
Waits, T., Lewis, L., & Greene, B. (2003). Distance education at degree-granting postsecondary
institutions: 2000-2001. National Center for Disease Statistics, Postsecondary Education
Quick Information System & U.S. Department of Education.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2003/2003017.pdf
Waller, L. (2021). Fostering a Sense of Belonging in the Workplace: Enhancing Well-Being and
a Positive and Coherent Sense of Self. (pp. 341-367). Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30025-8_83

146
Walton, G. M., & Brady, S. T. (2017). The many questions of belonging. In A. J. Elliot, C. S.
Dweck, & D. S. Yeager (Eds.), Handbook of Competence and Motivation (2nd ed., pp.
272-293). The Guilford Press.
Wingo, N. P., Ivankova, N. V., & Moss, J. A. (2017). Faculty perceptions about teaching online:
exploring the literature using the technology acceptance model as an organizing
framework. Online Learning, 21(1), 15-35. https://doi.org/10.10.24059/olj.v21i1.761
Woods, E. N. (2001). The DPT: What it means for the profession. PT Magazine, 9(5), 36-43.
World Physiotherapy. (May 2020). Word Physiotherapy response to COVID-19 briefing paper 1:
Immediate impact on the higher education sector and response to delivering
physiotherapist entry level education. World Physiotherapy.
https://world.physio/sites/default/files/2021-06/COVID-19-Briefing-paper-1-HEIFINAL-2021.pdf
Yang, L., Holtz, D., Jaffe, S., Suri, S., Sinha, S., Weston, J., Joyce, C., Shah, N., Sherman, K.,
Hecht, B., & Teevan, J. (2022). The effects of remote work on collaboration among
information workers. Nature Human Behaviour, 6(1), 43-54.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01196-4

147
Appendix A: Interview Protocol
Research Questions:
This study aims to understand the experience of full-time hybrid physical therapy faculty with
feeling belonging in their organization. The research questions explored are:
Research Question 1. What is the experience of belonging for full-time hybrid physical
therapy faculty?
Research Question 2. What are the supports and barriers for full-time hybrid physical
therapy faculty have?
Introduction to the Interview:
Thank you for joining me in this interview today. I really value your time and insights for
this research project. The interview should take between 45-60 minutes. Does that still work for
your schedule today?
I am conducting this study to understand more about the sense of belonging that hybrid
physical therapy faculty feel within their organization. As you know, hybrid curricular models in
physical therapy education programs are growing, and so are the numbers of hybrid faculty.
Understanding more about hybrid faculty sense of belonging may provide insights into faculty
well-being and faculty retention.
I use the words “hybrid faculty” to mean a faculty member whose primary teaching
responsibilities occur off-campus with limited on-site teaching (e.g. reserved for Immersions).
Does that still describe your faculty appointment?
I will record some notes during the interview to help me remember details of what you
share. I will also be recording our conversation and transcribing what you say. The recording
helps me to ensure that I do not miss something or change your words as I take notes, and it also

148
allows me to focus more attention on our conversation. You can ask me to turn off the recording
at any time. Do I have your permission to record the interview?
Your privacy will be protected within the transcription of this interview through use of
pseudonyms. In the coming months, I will come back to you with questions and preliminary
findings to make sure I have interpreted your thoughts and feelings accurately. You have the
final say over what is included in the study’s report. It is also important to remind you that you
have the right to end the interview or withdraw from this study at any time.
Do you have any last questions? Do I have your permission to begin the interview?
Table A1
Interview Questions, Probes, and Research Question (RQ) Cross-Walk
Interview questions Potential probes RQ
addressed
Key concept
addressed
Introduction / Warm-Up
1. I’ll start with some questions
about your experience as a
physical therapist (PT). How
long have you been a PT?
When did you transition to an
academic faculty position?
How long have you been
working as a full-time
hybrid instructor? Is
this time all within
your current institution
or across multiple
institutions?
What courses do you
teach in online or
hybrid formats?
N/A N/A
Person (Allen et al., 2016; Bronfenbrenner, 1977)
2. What does having a “sense of
belonging” at work mean to
you?
Anything else? Q1 Experience of
belonging
3. Talk with me about the
importance of workplace
belonging for you. How
important is belonging at
work for you?
What else? Q1 Experience of
belonging

149
Interview questions Potential probes RQ
addressed
Key concept
addressed
4. Describe your feelings of
belonging or lack thereof at
your current organization.
What factors contribute
most to this feeling of
belonging or lack?
Q1 Experience of
belonging
5. What, if any, influence does
the environment have on your
feeling of belonging,
specifically feeling belonging
when you are remote
compared to when you are on
campus?
Any other influences of
being remote versus on
campus for
immersions?
Q1 Experience of
belonging
6. What behaviors have you
engaged in as a hybrid faculty
member to feel belonging at
work?
Did these behaviors come
naturally for you, or did
you need to learn them?
Q1 Experience of
belonging
7. Are there other skills or
behaviors you feel you need to
develop to support your
feeling of belonging?
Any other skills or
behaviors you can
think of?
Q1 Experience of
belonging
Microsystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1977)
8. Now I am going to ask some
questions about individuals
you likely interact with in
your day-to-day work. How
does your interaction with
your program director
contribute to belonging in
your current position?
Provide specific examples
of how the program
director positively
influences your feeling
of belonging.
Q2 Belonging
supports/barriers
9. What are barriers to feeling
belonging in your interactions
with your program director?
Any other programdirector barriers?
Q2 Belonging
supports/barriers
10. How do your interactions with
faculty peers contribute to
belonging in your current
position?
Provide specific examples
of how faculty peers
positively influences
your feeling of
belonging.
Q2 Belonging
supports/barriers

150
Interview questions Potential probes RQ
addressed
Key concept
addressed
11. What are barriers to feeling
belonging in your interactions
with your faculty peers?
Any other faculty / peer
barriers?
Q2 Belonging
supports/barriers
12. How do your interactions with
students contribute to
belonging in your current
position?
Provide specific examples
of how students
positively influence
your feeling of
belonging.
Q2 Belonging
supports/barriers
13. What are barriers to feeling
belonging in your interactions
with students?
Any other student-related
barriers?
Q2 Belonging
supports/barriers
Mesosystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1977)
14. In what ways does your
broader
institution/organization
promote belonging and
community for hybrid faculty?
Anything else?
Please elaborate.
Q2 Belonging
supports/barriers
15. What broader institutional or
organizational barriers do you
perceive to belonging and
community for hybrid faculty?
Tell me more.
Please elaborate on
that for me.
Q2 Belonging
supports/barriers
16. What advice would you give a
hybrid co-worker about
behaviors to help them feel
belonging at this
organization?
Anything else? Q2 Belonging
supports/barriers
17. What would you change at
your organization to improve
sense of belonging for hybrid
faculty?
Anything else you can
think of?
Q2 Belonging
supports/barriers
Conclusion
18. Do you have anything else to
add before we conclude this
interview?

151
Conclusion to the Interview:
That concludes our interview today. Thank you again for your time and insights as it
relates to sense of belonging for hybrid PT faculty members. I look forward to connecting with
you again in the near future to share my preliminary findings for your review and further input.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions you have in the meantime.
Do you know any other full-time hybrid physical therapy faculty who may be interested
or eligible to participate in this study? If so, may I have their email address?
I will now end the recording.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Little is known about the experience of belonging for full-time, hybrid physical therapy faculty in the United States. Rapid growth of Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) education programs with hybrid curricular models and national physical therapy faculty shortages suggest the importance of exploring faculty belonging, especially given the relationship between belonging and job performance, retention, and satisfaction. The purpose of this study was to understand the experience of belonging for hybrid physical therapy faculty, as well as the supports and barriers for sense of belonging within the faculty’s immediate and distal environments. Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems framework anchored the study. Using purposeful sampling, 15 faculty employed full-time in accredited or candidate for accreditation physical therapy programs with hybrid curricular models participated in semi-structured, virtual interviews. Responses were transcribed, coded, and analyzed using NVivo software. Methods to enhance credibility and trustworthiness included engagement with the data, member checks, an audit trail, and researcher reflexivity. Study findings suggest that hybrid physical therapy faculty experience belonging as deep human connection with colleagues that develops and changes over time. Hybrid faculty exert considerable effort to develop meaningful connections on-campus and remotely through formal and informal activities and technology. Supports and barriers to belonging emerged as personal, interpersonal, and organizational factors. Personal characteristics influencing belonging in positive and negative ways included values and priorities, communication strategies, and personality characteristics. Interpersonal relationships with program directors, faculty peers, and students supported or interfered with belonging depending on the presence of collegiality and accessibility. Factors related to the culture and structure of the DPT department and broader university also influenced belonging in helpful and detrimental ways. Study findings ground four recommendations for faculty members, program directors, and university leaders to enhance the full-time hybrid physical therapy faculty member’s belonging experience in DPT education.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Faculty’s influence on underrepresented minority (URM) undergraduate retention

PDF

Educators, experiences, and environment: exploring Doctor of Physical Therapy student perceived influences on professional identity formation

PDF

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

PDF

Preparing Asian American leaders in higher education: an exploration study using Bronfenbrenner's ecological model

PDF

Part-time faculty and their sense of belonging

PDF

Evaluation of a post work related injury total wellness program designed for fire and police department employees

PDF

The impact of campus climate on community college student motivation

PDF

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

PDF

Big dreams lost: the influence of mentoring to reduce PhD attrition

PDF

Underrepresentation of women in the U.S. banking industry’s top executive roles: why doesn’t the CEO look like me?

PDF

Organizational design for embedding corporate social responsibility

PDF

Evaluating the effectiveness of global residence in improving resident cultural intelligence

PDF

Black male experience on a community college campus: a study on sense of belonging

PDF

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

PDF

Chameleons and kungas: the perceptions and experiences of military veteran faculty members in their transitions to academic service

PDF

In the shadows: the perceived experiences of women principals in secondary schools

PDF

School culture and its impact on PBIS implementation

PDF

Enduring in silence: understanding the intersecting challenges of women living with multiple sclerosis in the workplace

PDF

Preparing university faculty for distance education: an evaluation study

PDF

School-based interventions for chronically absent students in poverty

Asset Metadata

Creator Ruckert, Elizabeth Audrey (author)

Core Title Experience of belonging for full-time hybrid physical therapy faculty

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2024-05

Publication Date 04/08/2024

Defense Date 03/05/2024

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

Tag belonging,collegiality,faculty,hybrid,Physical Therapy

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Stowe, Kathy (committee chair), Malloy, Courtney Lynn (committee member), Pritchard, Marcus (committee member)

Creator Email ruckert@pt.usc.edu,ruckert@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113871206

Unique identifier UC113871206

Identifier etd-RuckertEli-12775.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-RuckertEli-12775

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Ruckert, Elizabeth Audrey

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240408-usctheses-batch-1137 (batch), 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 author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

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

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu