Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Supporting contingent faculty at Nina University: an evaluation study
(USC Thesis Other)
Supporting contingent faculty at Nina University: an evaluation study
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Supporting Contingent Faculty at Nina University:
An Evaluation Study
Julia Broderick
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
August 2023
© Copyright by Julia Broderick 2023
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Julia Broderick certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Alan Green
Frances Kellar
Darline Robles, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023
iv
Abstract
Using the gap analysis evaluation model framework (Clark & Estes, 2008), this study examined
the support, or lack of support, experienced by contingent faculty at Nina University. The
purpose of this study was to conduct a gap analysis to understand the experience of contingent
faculty satisfaction at Nina University. The goal was to uncover data to examine work conditions
and implement a plan to fill in the gaps to ensure an improved, if need be, culture for those who
teach in contingent track positions. Mixed methods were used to collect survey data from 74
participants and interview data for 10 participants to share their experiences with support or lack
of support as contingent faculty in Nina University’s College of Arts and Sciences. Findings
show contingent faculty need support, mentorship, and resources. Based on the findings,
solutions grounded in related research literature are offered to address these barriers. This study
shows how contingent faculty, along with other stakeholders, can be better supported and more
involved in this organization. The gap analysis framework provides an opportunity to address
support issues and to evaluate potential solutions.
v
Dedication
To my daughter Nina. We did this together your first 2 years of life. The day I met you is the day
I met myself. I hope you always hold dear the light inside your independent and kind soul. Go
for your dreams and be who you are. This accomplishment means a lot, but being your mother
means everything.
To my husband, Andre. It is easy to go for my dreams with a partner who always encourages me
to fight for them. You have never made me feel anything but loved and supported. Thank you for
being the father of our daughter, and if we are ever lucky enough to be parents again, we love
them already. I am lucky to do life with you, and I love you.
To my mother who is my heart and greatest cheerleader.
To my father who has always encouraged me. And to my brother who has always inspired me.
To Wally who inspired my love of education. My Nonno always felt it was possible that I would
be an educator. He always taught me to find the magic and that is a magnificent lesson I will
carry with me.
vi
Acknowledgments
I have been lucky to have amazing educators in my life. I want to thank my amazing
committee, Dr. Robles, Dr. Green, and Dr. Kellar for their support, expertise, and work. Dr.
Robles, you have changed my life, and I am grateful for your belief in me. I appreciate the loving
community of my Rossier cohort that have become friendships for life. My time in this doctorate
program has been a joy and has challenged me in the best ways. I thank you all.
vii
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xi
Chapter One: Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
Organizational Context and Mission .................................................................................. 1
Organizational Performance Goal ....................................................................................... 2
Related Literature ................................................................................................................ 4
Importance of the Evaluation .............................................................................................. 6
Stakeholders and Stakeholders’ Performance Goals .......................................................... 7
Purpose of the Project and Questions ............................................................................... 10
Methodological Framework .............................................................................................. 10
Definitions ......................................................................................................................... 11
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................. 12
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 13
Influences on the Problem of Practice .............................................................................. 14
Higher Education Work Culture ....................................................................................... 14
Shifts in Hiring .................................................................................................................. 16
Higher Education Work Culture ....................................................................................... 17
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 19
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences .............................. 19
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 28
Conceptual and Methodological Framework .................................................................... 29
Participating Stakeholders and Sample Selection ............................................................. 38
viii
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 39
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 40
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 41
Trustworthiness of Data .................................................................................................... 42
Role of Investigator ........................................................................................................... 42
Limitations and Delimitations ........................................................................................... 43
Chapter Four: Results and Findings .............................................................................................. 44
Participating Stakeholders ................................................................................................ 45
Findings ............................................................................................................................ 47
Determination of Assets and Needs .................................................................................. 48
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes .................................................................... 49
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes .................................................................... 55
Results and Findings for Organization Causes ................................................................. 63
Summary of Validated Influences .................................................................................... 72
Chapter Five: Recommendations and Evaluations ....................................................................... 75
Purpose of the Project and Questions ............................................................................... 75
Recommendations to Address KMO Influences ............................................................... 75
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan ............................................................... 86
Limitations and Delimitations ........................................................................................... 98
Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................................ 98
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 99
References ................................................................................................................................... 100
Appendix A: Survey Protocol ..................................................................................................... 106
Appendix B: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 107
Appendix C: Interview Question List ......................................................................................... 108
Appendix D: Recruitment Email ................................................................................................ 109
ix
Appendix E: Consent Form ........................................................................................................ 110
Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................... 110
Participant Involvement .................................................................................................. 110
Confidentiality ................................................................................................................ 110
Required Language ......................................................................................................... 110
Investigator Contact Information .................................................................................... 111
IRB Contact Information ................................................................................................ 111
x
List of Tables
Table 1: Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Goals 9
Table 2: Assumed Knowledge Influences on Stakeholders’ Ability to Achieve Performance
Goal 22
Table 3: Assumed Motivation Influences on Stakeholders’ Ability to Achieve Performance
Goal 24
Table 4: Organization, Assumed Organization Influence, and Related Research 27
Table 5: Knowledge, Influences, Survey Items, and Interview Questions 32
Table 6: Motivation, Assumed Motivation Influences, Survey Items, and Interview
Questions 34
Table 7: Organization, Assumed Organization Influences, Survey Items, and Interview
Questions 37
Table 8: Participant Information 47
Table 9: Assets or Needs As Determined by the Data 72
Table 10: Knowledge Assets or Needs As Determined by the Data 73
Table 11: Motivation Assets or Needs As Determined by the Data 73
Table 12: Organization Assets or Needs As Determined by the Data 74
Table 13: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 77
Table 14: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 79
Table 15: Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations 82
Table 16: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 88
Table 17: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation 89
Table 18: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors 91
Table 19: Evaluation of Learning Components for Program 94
Table 20: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program 95
xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Gap Analysis Process 30
Figure 2: Knowledge Survey Question: Conceptual Knowledge 50
Figure 3: Knowledge Survey Question: Procedural Knowledge 53
Figure 4: Knowledge Survey Question: Metacognitive Knowledge 54
Figure 5: Motivation Survey Question: Self Efficacy 56
Figure 6: Motivation Survey Question: Attributions 58
Figure 7: Motivational Survey Question: Goal Orientation 60
Figure 8: Motivation Survey Question: Mood 62
Figure 9: Organization Survey Question: Resources 64
Figure 10: Organization Survey Question: Policies and Procedures 66
Figure 11: Organization Survey Question 1: Cultural Models 67
Figure 12: Organization Survey Question 2: Cultural Models 68
Figure 13: Organization Survey Question: Cultural Settings 71
1
Chapter One: Introduction
Higher education has a complex history and was founded on the notion of academic
excellence. The United States has had a power dynamic in the hierarchy of teaching and the
values culture places on them (Nica, 2018). From preschool to higher education, labor and the
heart of teaching has not always reflected the status given to educators. In recent events (i.e.,
remote learning during the shutdown due to the COVID-19 global pandemic), higher education
educators (e.g., lecturers, adjunct professors) were pivotal in students’ adjustment and learning
(Heriyanto et al., 2022). The problem of practice examined in this work was to understand the
support, or need of support, Nina University provides their contingent faculty. Guided by
literature, this research provided suggestions to implement more support for part-time faculty
that also will influence other stakeholders (i.e., tenured faculty, future educators, students). For
this study, I referred to nontenured faculty as contingent faculty, which included faculty who
were student facing in the classroom at a university, such as Nina University, and who were not
tenured.
Organizational Context and Mission
Nina University (i.e., pseudonym) is a 4-year state institution in the western United
States, providing undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral degrees in a variety of academic colleges
in a state in the West. Nina University has been in the Top 50 colleges for innovation in the
United States. Nina University had 24,103 students enrolled during the 2020–2021 academic
year at the time of this study. Of these students, 66% were enrolled in state, and 34% were out-
of-state students. As of the years 2018–2019, this institution had a 41% graduate rate, a tuition
cost of about $16,000 after financial aid for an undergraduate degree, and 17,000 undergraduate
students. As of the 2020–2021 academic year, the tuition was stated to be $24,000 per year for
2
out-of-state residents and $8,000 for in-state students. This university had a rate of 76% full-time
and 24% part-time students during the 2020–2021 academic year.
Nina University had 784 full-time faculty (i.e., benefited and teaching 12 or more credits
per semester) and 584 part-time faculty (i.e., non-benefited and teaching 11 credits or fewer) at
the time of this study, which equated to about 75% of faculty being full time and 25% being part
time. Part-time faculty renew their teaching contracts every 1 to 2 semesters, and full-time
faculty renew every 3–5 years. An adjunct faculty member or lecturer faculty member is
scheduled but not promised their compensation. For example, a part-time faculty member can
teach in the fall (i.e., August–December) and be scheduled for the following semester; however,
their contract is not signed and approved until after the fall semester, giving the university the
right to terminate the classes or move students to another section.
The problem explored in this work impacts at least 25% of current and future faculty. For
full-time lecturer faculty, there is a range of four levels (i.e., Lecturer 1, 2, and 3, and Senior 3),
which increases with pay and benefits. At the time of this study, a Lecturer 1 was paid $42,000,
and a Senior Lecturer 3 was paid $46,000 or higher. Adjunct faculty are paid based on
enrollment when it comes to class size and enrollment (i.e., additional credits of $50, $70, or
$100 based on an extra 50 students per class).
Organizational Performance Goal
Nina University has a performance goal to increase contingent faculty satisfaction and
reports of support by 30% or higher by the end of the Spring 2026 semester. A survey was
deployed in Spring 2023 to be completed by contingent faculty in the College of Arts and
Sciences (COAS) at Nina University. Data collected in the 2024 survey would act as a baseline
for future comparisons in Fall 2025. A final survey will be available for contingent faculty
3
members in the COAS in the first half of the Spring 2026 semester to assess if the performance
goal of a 30% satisfaction increase is achieved for this stakeholder group.
Achieving the performance goal is imperative at Nina University because higher
education needs to improve interpersonal communication and connection within organizations.
Higher education institutions are familiar with tensions in departments regarding hierarchy and
overworking part-time faculty. Communication in 2022 from the dean of arts and sciences at
Nina University and the faculty senate stated adjuncts and lecturers felt undervalued in their
organizations. According to Nina University’s faculty senate notes from 2022, revision of
promotion, course load, and voting rights were called into question by those in the adjunct and
lecturer communities.
In faculty meetings from 2020–2022, faculty consistently discussed working conditions
and ambiguous expectations of contingent faculty members. They frequently shared their
concerns with organizational officials (i.e., chairs, administrators) at department meetings,
faculty senate, and public forums. Concerns included different departments having a lack of
graduate assistants while others had many, adjuncts as a large portion of departments, and a
decline in student populations; there are many angles to consider regarding supporting part-time
faculty.
Focus groups (e.g., Supporting First-Year Students) were created to combat issues on
campus such as a decline in enrollment from in-state college students. Although this focus group
did not address issues in support for contingent faculty, it did include the emotional and
professional labor asked of all faculty, including contingent faculty, to be more active on campus
and support in-state and first–generation students facing poor enrollment rates since the COVID-
19 global pandemic.
4
Related Literature
People in higher education have had many opportunities to practice social justice change
and leadership and often have missed the mark. If leaders at colleges and all educational
organizations do not practice global competence intentionally, they miss opportunities to create a
curriculum and culture of social justice for all stakeholders to grow (Brustein, 2007). Across
literature related to higher education, literature, and social justice in education (Brustein, 2007;
Heriyanto et al., 2022; Langen, 2011), an emerging theme was social change needing to occur
regarding power and dynamics in facilities.
Contingent faculty members carrying a lower level class load are responsible for having
expertise in the field and topic they teach, and students and the culture expect faculty to support
students (Heriyanto et al., 2022). During the COVID-19 global pandemic, students reported,
while learning online, they leaned on their 100- and 200-level lecturers not only to teach the
classes that moved to remote instruction but also to support them emotionally and teach them
how to be online learners (Heriyanto et al., 2022). This created an understanding that the
expectations of contingent faculty often were beyond their job description with little recognition.
A short-term or micro solution could be to create better treatment and support for those
with less power than administrators or tenured professors. The role of contingent faculty (i.e.,
adjunct, lectures, part time) educators at universities in the United States has shifted (Langen,
2011). Part-time faculty have become more visible and accessible to students in higher education
(Langen, 2011). In the past, this demographic of educators mostly taught occasionally, whereas
they since have become part of the fabric of department faculty (Langen, 2011).
The problem explored in this work was the potentially problematic conditions of part-
time faculty satisfaction with their employment at Nina University. Listening and internalizing
the stories and experiences of support, or lack thereof, for contingent track faculty could help the
5
organization grow (Jensen & Ratcliffe, 2020). The consequences of neglecting to solve this
problem is the potential damage to faculty and student self-efficacy, fracturing the culture at the
university, and having trouble maintaining retention. This potential problem impacts the goals or
mission of the school, agency, or organization because lack of support for part-time faculty may
influence student success and stray from the university’s mission statement.
As shown in the literature, adjunct and lecturer faculty have been chronically
undervalued in American universities (Nica, 2018). By embarking on this research, voices and
potential problems could be unearthed and represented. This work contributes to a growing body
of interdisciplinary research aiming to further knowledge about higher education and ethics
related to the work conditions of all educators.
This study explored higher education, educator work conditions, and support for
contingent faculty at Nina University. Interdisciplinary research was explored to best support
part-time faculty at higher education institutions. Furthermore, findings of this study could shed
light on problems outside of higher education, such as public education, communication, and
hierarchy in the workplace.
It will be costly to the institution if institutions of higher education like Nina University
cannot retain contingent track faculty (i.e., lecturers, adjuncts). If contingent faculty exit the field
of teaching in higher education, there will be more costs and a lack of staff to teach the demand
of classes. My problem of practice was to understand Nina University’s support, or need for
support, for their contingent faculty. Via qualitative research, contingent faculty voices were
amplified and added to the body of knowledge published by scholars working to improve higher
education.
6
Importance of the Evaluation
Nina University serves many students, employees, educators, and other staff. It was
important to explore this problem through the gap analysis evaluation model. Supporting
contingent faculty is an ethical and economical investment (Fagan et al., 2006). A lack of support
for contingent faculty has been common at universities throughout the United States, which has
impacted many stakeholders, including students (Fagan et al., 2006). The normalization of
contingent faculty called to work beyond their contracts without compensation or validation is
problematic (Heriyanto et al., 2022; Langen, 2011) and affects not only contingent faculty but
also all stakeholders who rely on the culture moving toward social justice at Nina University and
at other institutions.
Evidence has shown high turnover rates among contingent faculty who do not have
support for their positions. This turnover is highly costly to institutions. Employees who feel a
lack of value may look for other opportunities or lack motivation to strive for excellence at work
(Gelman et al., 2022). Evaluating the support of contingent faculty at Nina University can
improve the relationship between all faculty and the broader community and institution. If Nina
University does not have support for contingent faculty, they risk a costly hiring problem and
decline in satisfaction for students and faculty. School culture and leadership that acknowledges
the need for support and validation for all educators is necessary for success (Kraft & Falken,
2020).
Departments in the COAS at Nina University (e.g., sociology, English) have shown
efficacy of all faculty at each level (i.e., adjunct faculty, tenured professors) positively impacts
student engagement and performance. This issue has been discussed in student evaluations in
committees (e.g., faculty senate, 1st-year support committees). Evaluating the organization’s
support for all faculty will provide steps to ensure student-centered practices and achievement.
7
Stakeholders and Stakeholders’ Performance Goals
Key stakeholders can contribute to achieving the goal of supporting part-time faculty at
Nina University. The stakeholders outlined in this study were administrators, part-time faculty
(i.e., adjunct faculty and lecturer faculty), tenured faculty members, and students.
Administrators at Nina University make up a stakeholder group that can contribute to
achieving the goal of supporting contingent faculty. This group represents Nina University to the
state at the governmental level and are the highest paid faculty members. Nina University’s
administrative team (i.e., president, provost, dean of students) represents faculty and students to
the nation, state, and alumni network. It is in the best interest of the administration at this
institution to have their faculty, at all pay ranges and levels of prestige, satisfied with their
experience teaching at this university.
Contingent faculty (i.e., adjunct, lecturer, part time) were important stakeholders in this
study because they made up a significant percentage of the teaching faculty with the least power
on campus. Contingent faculty historically have experienced problematic work environments,
lack of access to benefits, and the prestige full-time faculty experience (Rhoades, 2020). This
group contributes to achieving the organization’s goal because they are student facing and
members of academic departments. The adjunct faculty at Nina University have their own
faculty senate (i.e., adjunct senate), which relays information to full-time faculty members and
represents the adjunct population to Nina University’s administration. Lecturer faculty members
have four tiers (i.e., Lecturer 1, Lecturer 2, Lecturer 3, senior lecturer).
These stakeholders have had a diverse experience on campus; some have job security,
and others do not know their employment status outside of a 9-month contract. Lecturer faculty
members often are awarded teaching nominations and accolades from the student body (i.e., The
Golden Apple). Their courses often are sought after by students due to reputation and confidence
8
in their teaching abilities from academic advisors and staff. Lecturers and adjuncts at Nina
University are under the same stakeholder group of contingent faculty.
Tenured faculty hold more power than other faculty members on campuses across the
country. This power may differ from department to department, but tenured faculty typically
have voting rights and hiring power. At research institutions, such as Nina University, faculty
members who hold tenure conduct research and have a lighter teaching load to ensure they are
publishing. Different strains of faculty occur in tenure culture, such as the pressure to publish
and duties such as acting as chair.
Nina University’s mission is to provide an innovative, transformative, and equitable
educational environment that prepares students for success and advances the state and the world.
Students are at the heart of Nina University’s mission (see Table 1). Students receive an
education at institutions like Nina University to influence their future. They may not be privy to
the hierarchical culture of educators and politics on their campus when it comes to faculty. If
students take a class from an overworked faculty member, they may suffer. In this study, I
sought to understand the important role contingent faculty play at Nina University by
determining their satisfaction with working conditions. If contingent faculty feel supported and
valued in their work within an organization, there will be positive outcomes for their experiences
(Rhoades, 2020).
9
Table 1
Organizational Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Goals
Many stakeholders from Nina University were considered for this study—those teaching
in the classroom, those employed by the university, and those experiencing the hierarchy of
historical higher educational norms. The stakeholder groups included in this study were
Organizational mission
The mission of Nina University is to provide an innovative, transformative, and equitable
educational environment that prepares students for success and advances State X and the
world.
Organizational performance goal
By Spring 2026, Nina University will have a 100% satisfaction rate by contingent faculty in
relation to their perceived support by their institution. Two surveys will need to be
completed to determine success and a lack of success.
Stakeholders
Administration Contingent faculty
(part time, adjunct,
lecturer faculty)
Tenured faculty Students
By Fall 2023, the
research shall be
concluded. The
administration
can create a
survey to be
completed by
contingent
faculty members
in May 2024.
When results are
gathered and
analyzed, data
will be given to
contingent
faculty.
By May 2024,
contingent
faculty at Nina
University will
be surveyed and
interviewed to
provide data on
elements of
support they
want/need from
tenured faculty
and
administrators at
Nina University.
By May 2024,
tenured faculty
will implement
potential
strategic plans to
support
contingent
faculty. By May
2024, each
tenured faculty
member will be
assigned a
contingent track
faculty member
to mentor and
support.
By May 2024,
undergraduate students
will conduct teaching
evaluations with
questions aiming to
understand the pedagogy
of their educator (e.g.,
tenured faculty,
contingent faculty).
Survey results need to be
assessed and coded in Fall
2024. An action plan will
be made for the following
school year based on the
Fall 2024 findings.
Findings will be presented
to the COAS dean in May
2024. A survey will be
distributed again to
increase by 20% from
2023.
10
contingent faculty (i.e., adjunct faculty combined with contingent full-time faculty), tenured
faculty, and students. However, this study focused primarily on contingent faculty. The
relationship between tenured faculty and part-time or contingent faculty was the focus of this
study because the professional relationship often is strained or competitive in higher education.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this study was to conduct a gap analysis to understand the working
conditions for contingent faculty at Nina University; therefore, the following research questions
guided this study:
1. What motivational and knowledge influences contribute to the supportive work
environment for contingent faculty at Nina University?
2. What are the organizational influences of contingent faculty satisfaction with their
employment status at Nina University?
Recommendations from the findings will be made to the Nina University to improve working
conditions for contingent faculty.
Methodological Framework
This study used a mixed methods approach and applied the conceptual framework of the
gap analysis (Clark & Estes, 2008). Qualitative research allowed me to uncover the meaning of a
potential phenomenon surrounding the topic of supporting contingent faculty (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). The survey was sent to contingent faculty in one college, the COAS. Interviews
were conducted only with contingent faculty in the COAS. The mixed methods included a
quantitative survey, and the qualitative aspect of the study included an interview protocol.
Data were collected through an anonymous survey sent to all contingent faculty in the
COAS. The institutional review board (IRB) approved the open-ended questions on the survey.
The survey provided an opportunity for qualitative coding and interpretation of themes found in
11
participants’ answers. Interviews were used to further ground the data and add perspective and
direct quotes of participant voices to the analysis.
There are four steps in Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis. The first step in the gap
analysis was to assess and identify the current situation, which included acknowledging where
the organization was at the time of the study with an objective and open perspective. The second
step in the gap analysis was to set goals related to where the organization can and should end
with the implementation. The third step was to analyze gaps between the current understanding
of the organization’s position to the goals needing to be achieved. Examples of this are shown in
works such as Turner’s (2020) study. The final step was to establish a concrete plan of action to
fill in gaps with a timeline, a plan for stakeholders, and a roadmap for completion.
Definitions
• Adjunct refers to an adjunct faculty member who teaches without a research load at
the institution or without tenured status. This person is allowed to teach up to 11
credits per semester at Nina University. They are not eligible for benefits or voting
rights at the institution. Adjuncts, in this study, fell under the category of contingent
faculty.
• Contingent faculty are individuals with teaching positions who hold at least a
master’s degree. This can include lecturers without current tenure or part-time
faculty. This term includes contingent, lecturer, and part-time faculty.
• A lecturer holds a salaried position without research responsibilities or leadership
roles in the institution. This position is most often based on a 9-month teaching
contract. In the hierarchy of higher education at Nina University, this position is a
step up from contingent part-time faculty and a step below tenured faculty. Lecturers,
in this study, fell under the category of contingent faculty.
12
• Nina University is the pseudonym for the university in this study. The institution is a
state school in the western United States.
Organization of the Study
Five chapters were provided for the organization of this study. Each chapter was
grounded in interdisciplinary research and exploration to provide insight into experiences in
contingent faculty’s experiences of support. Chapter 1 provided the reader with an overview of
the study, terminology, and key concepts to establish understanding. The mission of the
organization and exploration of stakeholders was provided in this section of the study. Chapter 2
explores the literature that informed this study and provides an understanding of the subject
matter. Topics such as higher education, faculty efficacy, student-centered pedagogy, and power
in academia are discussed. The conceptual framework of the gap analysis is the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational (KMO) influences.
An exploration of support, higher education, and faculty experience takes place to inform
the study. The methodology, rationale of participant selection, data collection, and analysis are
identified in Chapter 3. Results and data are explored in Chapter 4, followed by
recommendations based on the data and literature review in Chapter 5. Chapter 5 includes a
scaffolded analysis and suggestions for the organization based on findings applying gap analysis
to this research. These five chapters share perspectives and potential recommendations needed at
Nina University to ensure support and efficacy for part-time or contingent faculty. Lastly, a call
to action and a call for future research is presented at the end of Chapter 5.
13
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
Universities, such as Nina University, can implement social justice change and
leadership. Stakeholders in higher education (i.e., students, tenured faculty, contingent faculty)
can grow professionally and personally from a culture of inclusive curriculum and social justice
leadership (Brustein, 2007). Interdisciplinary literature (Brustein, 2007; Heriyanto et al., 2022;
Langen, 2011) related to higher education, leadership, and social justice in education has
provided important insights on the need to investigate power dynamics (e.g., tenured faculty vs.
contingent faculty). Social problems in an organization like Nina University can be discovered
through norms and communication issues regarding power dynamics.
The purpose of this study was to conduct a gap analysis to understand the experience of
contingent faculty satisfaction at Nina University by uncovering data to examine work conditions
and implement a plan to fill in the gaps to ensure an improved culture, if need be, for those
teaching in contingent track positions. The analysis in this study explored the implementation of
change with openness to allow the data to illuminate participants’ experiences.
In Chapter 2, I review the history of higher education, hierarchy in the workplace, and
emotional and professional support. Then, I review the role of contingent faculty members in
higher education, followed by an explanation of the KMO model as a conceptual framework
used in this study. I examine the role of tenured faculty KMO influences. I finish the chapter by
presenting the conceptual framework—Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis.
Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis was the conceptual framework used to comprehend
where an organization exists and gaps related to where they need to go. The cyclical nature of
goals, current achievement, and gaps are discovered through KMO policies (Clark & Estes,
2008). This conceptual framework identifies influences to improve policies, relationships,
communication, and cultural settings. Three influences make up this conceptual framework—
14
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influence—and can identify the driving factors
stakeholders experience. Chapter 3 further explains and explores the significance of these three
influences as they informed the questions and items in the research study.
Influences on the Problem of Practice
The literature review provides an overview of the research addressing the problem of
practice in this study. The literature review examines a broad overview of higher education
history (Cabrera, 2020) and focuses on the colonial foundations of higher education from its
inception (Stein, 2018). After providing context of social problems and a historical context of
higher education, I discuss hiring norms and experiences (Hearn & Burns, 2021). The literature
review provides information on trends related to contingent faculty (Schwartz, 2014), social
justice in higher education (Elliott & Blair, 2020), and improvement practices (Hattie, 2015).
Higher Education Work Culture
This section discusses support, or lack thereof, for faculty in higher education. This
section examines the history of higher education. Social problems such as racism, classism, and
sexism are included in this work.
Overview of Higher Education’s History
Universities often have been the entrance for individuals beginning their careers and
continuing their academic career. However, the history and current social problems of higher
education have presented barriers to many people, especially those with intersectional identities
(Cabrera, 2020). College institutions were not created with everyone in mind but facilitated an
education for those in positions of power. The history of higher education was founded on
practices of White supremacy, sexism, and classism (Cabrera, 2020). Created on stolen land with
exclusively Whiteness in mind, institutions owe an educational debt to students and marginalized
communities (Cabrera, 2020). The institutional structure of college must acknowledge the
15
educational debt in which it has participated and the demographics it has failed. It is important
not only to discuss racism and colonialism in the foundational fabric of higher education in the
United States but also to strategize an action plan to move forward in a direction founded in
social justice (Stein, 2018). Higher education cannot improve for both its students and its faculty
unless leaders engage in deep reflection on where they have been.
Intersectionality is important to consider when examining the history and demographics
of those enrolled in higher education (Goodman, 2020). Society needed women to become
educated through higher education and join the workforce, and then they were dismissed from
such education. Many women have not had a straight line of entry; instead, they have
experienced structural barriers (Goodman, 2020). Throughout history, primarily White
institutions have excluded women and people of color from full participation (Cabrera, 2020).
Systemic Racism in Higher Education
The experience of marginalization has continued in higher education, further staying true
to institutions’ foundation of White supremacy and failing those who have been oppressed.
Students of color, women, LGBTQIA+ students (i.e., lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender,
intersex, queer/questioning, asexual, and more), and students who practice religions outside of
Christianity have continued to be marginalized. Colleges have a responsibility to promote
democratic principles, much of which requires uncovering the White supremacy that has plagued
the institutions (Cabrera, 2014).
Racism and White supremacy in higher education has been studied extensively and often
with a lack of objective labeling of the social problem (Harper, 2012). Those with power have
pushed to use language that has not named racism outwardly to make those in power and
privilege more comfortable in higher education (Harper, 2012). Cabrera (2014) studied
Whiteness and privilege and the lack of self-awareness in higher education. In their study,
16
participants identifying as White men refused to acknowledge their White privilege in or outside
of higher education. The lack of acknowledgment of White privilege and the need for
multicultural educational approaches has influenced college climate and classrooms and has
marginalized students and faculty of color further (Cabrera, 2014). Oftentimes, people in this
same demographic who often lack acknowledgment of White privilege have been vocal about
critical race theory being taught or explored in higher education (Harper, 2012). Research
showed having diverse student activities in higher education promoted more inclusion and
overall efficacy from students (Cole & Ahmadi, 2010). All students, regardless of their
demographic, benefit from diversity and intersectionality. These important components at the
university level are related to shifts in hiring.
Shifts in Hiring
The following section explores related scholarship on the hierarchy of departments and
majors in higher education. Next, this section includes work culture in higher education along
with improvement practices. Finally, social justice in higher education and its impact on
stakeholders (i.e., educators, students) are explored with related scholarship.
Hierarchy of Departments/Majors
Premeaux (2012) found understanding different stakeholder groups (i.e., tenured and
contingent faculty) was important at the university level. Each stakeholder group contributes a
modified value to the institution (e.g., contingent faculty teach lower division classes and tenured
faculty contribute to research). Approximately 90% of 4-year higher education institutions in the
United States and Canada have tenure systems. Of these institutions, most institutions reported
disagreements between tenure- and non-tenure-track faculty. Both tenure and nontenured faculty
tended to agree tenure has a large impact on the institution (Premeaux, 2012). Both stakeholder
groups have acknowledged a need for change in the hierarchy practice of norms to change the
17
culture. Because of tightened budgets in higher education, contingent faculty have been recruited
and underrepresented in higher education (Hearn & Burns, 2021).
In many departments in public and private universities, the number of contingent faculty
have more than doubled the number of tenured faculty (Erstad et al., 2021). The trend to hire
more part-time faculty will continue with budget cuts and lack of trust in higher education,
culturally and politically. Inclusion is needed to retain these educators (Erstad et al., 2021).
Contingent faculty, who often are more vulnerable than seasoned tenured faculty, have been
saddled with teaching courses with public criticism (e.g., diversity courses; Miller & Struve,
2020).
Higher education has shifted from tenured faculty to hiring many contingent faculty
because of decades of budget cuts. Both tenured and contingent positions are competitive. It is
normal at many universities for tension to exist between groups (i.e., contingent, tenured) and
within individual groups (Schwartz, 2014). Positive results and a willingness to learn from each
other brought a good dynamic to departments participating in this study (Weijden et al., 2015).
Data have demonstrated young professors’ self-efficacy and teaching improved when they were
mentored by seasoned professors. As such, mentoring can lead one to understand that when a
good dynamic is lacking, a missed opportunity in a hierarchical structure exists. All stakeholders
can benefit from a mentoring relationship in higher education departments (Miller & Struve,
2020).
Higher Education Work Culture
This section discusses support, or lack thereof, for faculty in higher education.
Improvement Practices
A call for qualitative measurements and a narrative to acknowledge excellent teaching in
higher education is needed. In the case of teaching evaluations, quantitative data can be limited
18
in providing understanding of teachers’ dedication and pedagogical integrity (Denaro et al.,
2022). Understanding and shifting the narrative is key in an educational setting for all groups to
buy in to change. Amplifying the topic of student progress can help all people in educational
roles engage in change and find their place in the institution’s strategy.
At higher education institutions that typically run on a school-year timeline (i.e., August–
May), it is important for a single school-year plan to be attainable and give one the ability to
track progress (Hattie, 2015). Those who track progress may be administrators, educators, staff,
students, and community members. Re-culturing and providing organizational change require
stakeholders to work together and give voice to those who historically have been silenced.
Rituals, history making, symbolic meaning, and rules are all steps to create norms to provide
organizational change (Jerald, 2021).
Social Justice and Higher Education
Educating in higher education and understanding the relationship students must have with
social justice is important in education. Inclusion, accountability, and communication are pillars
of teaching social justice in higher education. Through their courses, students must be shown
their responsibility and positionality in social issues, such as systemic racism and police brutality
(Bohonos & Sisco, 2021). Faculty have experienced challenges in teaching social justice in
higher education due to push back and problematic rhetoric from right-wing culture and power
(Wilson-Strydom, 2015). Faculty at all levels who teach social justice in the United States have
given emotional labor without enough support and visibility (Elliott & Blair, 2020). Social
justice in higher education has been seen as threatening to many right-wing institutions of power
and has become increasingly targeted (Wilson-Strydom, 2015). However, students who learn
about social justice and interdisciplinary knowledge in higher education perform better in their
college experience and professional endeavors; therefore, theoretical frameworks (e.g.,
19
capabilities theory) can help instructors understand the best approach per student to navigate
these pedagogical needs worldwide (Wilson-Strydom, 2015).
Conceptual Framework
This research study used Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis evaluative model. Clark
and Estes’s gap analysis is a conceptual framework used to comprehend where an organization is
at the current time and where gaps are present, such as gaps in communication, understanding,
effectiveness, and progress in an organization. It is important to establish a deep understanding
of how the organization exists and determine goals and stakeholder needs to accomplish the
organization’s overall mission.
This conceptual framework helps stakeholders identify influences that should be
addressed to improve policies and cultural settings. The three KMO influences can help
stakeholders identify the driving factors they experience. In this study, Clark and Estes’s (2008)
conceptual framework was adapted as the potential need for support or continual support
improvement for contingent faculty at Nina University.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
The following section defines key terms and influences of the conceptual framework used
in this study. The different types of knowledge (e.g., procedural, conceptual) are defined with
examples and references to relevant research.
Knowledge and Skills
Krathwohl’s (2002) research was used in this research to scaffold the foundations of
learning. Conceptual learning theory examines one’s understanding of categories, principals, and
structures in an organization (Krathwohl, 2002). Understanding how to teach a course and
recognize best practices to serve students is grounded in conceptual knowledge. A contingent
faculty member’s conceptual knowledge needs to be assessed in and out of the classroom to give
20
them opportunities to reflect and observe their conceptual knowledge in the classroom and how it
impacts student learning. Conceptual knowledge about how to work with students and other
faculty is essential for their efficacy and ability to seek support.
Knowledge includes the following influences—factual, conceptual, procedural, and
metacognitive (Krathwohl, 2002)—which are fragmented by influence type, influence, and
description. Each of these learning theories can grant an individual clarity about their
relationships, communication, and behaviors in an organization. Separating these terms in this
study helped me to develop an instrument with informed questions to acquire rich data.
Procedural Knowledge
Procedural knowledge is the understanding of steps, process, and tasks (Krathwohl,
2002). This kind of knowledge can be compared to the social contract of working in an
organization and maintaining norms and regulations. Some procedural knowledge can be found
in a document (e.g., a mission statement or employee handbook at an institution like Nina
University) or observed informally.
Understanding the “dos and don’ts” of teaching in higher education and the norms can be
procedural knowledge. Classroom management, department responsibilities, and interactions
with students as a college instructor or professor are procedural. This ability is a skill one
develops over time, and they can benefit from mentorship and clear guidelines (Krathwohl,
2002).
Self-Reflection
The ability and willingness to pivot in one’s actions and self-awareness are important to
assess self-reflection (Krathwohl, 2002). In the current study, metacognitive knowledge was
discussed through the lens of the stakeholder group of contingent faculty. This kind of
knowledge is one’s ability to reassess their approach to monitor progress. The epistemological
21
experience of a tenured faculty’s conceptual knowledge versus a contingent faculty conceptual
knowledge is key. Only an individual can share insights of their own story and self-reflection,
which makes metacognition an important and nuanced type of knowledge.
Procedural Knowledge
Lastly, procedural knowledge was one learning theory used in the current study.
Understanding the shared knowledge of all stakeholders in the faculty of Nina University (i.e.,
contingent faculty, tenured faculty, and others) provides procedural knowledge. The steps one
takes from hiring to teaching their own class shows their work through structured learning and
their efficacy to complete tasks (e.g., onboarding new educators at the collegiate level). The
process of how to do something in an organization is procedural knowledge and has
consequences for other types of knowledge (e.g., metacognition).
Conceptual
Conceptual learning theory examines one’s understanding of categories, principals, and
structures in an organization (Krathwohl, 2002). The understanding of how to teach a course and
to recognize best practices to serve students is grounded in conceptual knowledge. The
conceptual knowledge of contingent faculty needs to be assessed in and outside the classroom.
The conceptual knowledge of how to work with students and faculty is essential to their efficacy
and ability to seek support (see Table 2).
22
Table 2
Assumed Knowledge Influences on Stakeholders’ Ability to Achieve Performance Goal
Knowledge Assumed knowledge influences Research
Conceptual Faculty need to understand the courses and teaching
strategies to best serve their students.
Clark & Estes (2008)
Jerald (2021)
Procedural Faculty need to know how to seek advice,
mentorship, and strategies to teach college
students.
Clark & Estes (2008)
Weijden et al. (2015)
Metacognition Faculty need to know how to reflect on their student
feedback and pedagogy.
Clark & Estes (2008)
Weijden et al. (2015)
Motivation
General Theory
When one attributes success or failure to effort rather than ability, there can be better
outcomes in performance and future in an organization (Clark & Estes, 2008). Motivation,
learning, and performance are hindered if one attributes their success and failure to their overall
ability or views them as out of their control. A stakeholder can experience improvement in an
organization if they attribute their behavior to intention and effort rather than a fixed mindset.
Choice, persistence, and motivation assessment include the following influences: self-
efficacy, attributions, goal orientation, and mood (Clark & Estes, 2008). Motivation assessment
can be a useful tool to observe willingness, communication, and how one shows up in their
organization. Establishing motivational assessments for a study can allow data to eliminate
intrinsic goals one may have and how one feels in their organization or role. These findings in
23
motivational assessment can provide insight about culture, communication, and impacts on
stakeholder groups (e.g., students when examining the motivational goals of their educators).
Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy as a motivation assessment seeks to understand a stakeholder’s confidence
and mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2008). This component is a challenging motivation to observe;
however, it is an important component because an individual with high self-efficacy has been
shown to have more willingness to persist, engage in challenging tasks, and have resilience
(Clark & Estes, 2008), which is related to attribution, another aspect of motivation assessment.
Goal Orientation
A motivational lens allows insight into the kind of praise and feedback one relates to and
the setting that suits the stakeholder (Clark & Estes, 2008). The setting (i.e., public, private) and
method of giving feedback (i.e., praise, constructive criticism) can be a principal factor in one’s
motivation in an organization. Table 3 shows the contingent faculty stakeholder’s influences and
related literature and explores the assumed motivational influences and types of motivation. Self-
efficacy, attributions, goal orientation, and mood are established as assumed motivational
influences with justification for each section.
24
Table 3
Assumed Motivation Influences on Stakeholders’ Ability to Achieve Performance Goal
Motivation Assumed motivation influences Research
Self-efficacy Contingent faculty must have the self-confidence to
teach what they have been hired to do by the
university.
Erstad et al. (2021)
Pink (2011)
Weijden et al. (2015)
Attributions Contingent faculty attribute their students’ success to
their ability to effectively teach their organizational
influences.
Clark & Estes (2008)
Goal
orientation
The contingent faculty need to prioritize self-
improvement and intrinsic goals for themselves as
stakeholders in the organization. By having goals to
assess and improve their own work, the
organization’s goal of providing an innovative,
transformative, and equitable educational
environment that prepares students for success and
advances state X and the world.
Pink (2011)
Hattie (2015)
Mood Contingent faculty need to feel positive about support.
This stakeholder needs to believe their work is valued
and important.
Clark & Estes (2008)
Elliott & Blair (2020)
25
Organization
The following section includes descriptions and examples of organization. In this section,
I describe resources, policies and procedures, cultural models, and cultural settings. Following
these descriptions, I overview assumed organizational influences and introduce related research.
Resources
An organization needs resources to empower its employees and meet the goals of their
mission. Resources can be monetary (e.g., raises, accolades) or in the form of support and effort.
An example of this includes the resources for a new hire teaching at a university, such as Nina
University, to have a mentor in the organization (Gelman et al., 2022). Having a mentor, an
opportunity to improve one’s ability to teach, and an understanding of the organization provides
one with capital. This resource is not only beneficial to the employee who is newer to the
organization but also to those providing the mentorship (Weijden et al., 2015).
Policies and Procedures
Identifying clear policies and procedures in an organization can lead to collaboration and
meeting one’s mission (Hattie, 2015). Data-informed procedures can provide insight to macro
and micro change in the organization’s policies to serve their targeted population (i.e., Nina
University serving higher education students).
Cultural Models
Values, beliefs, and communication are often nonapparent aspects of an organization but
are vital to all stakeholders (Clark & Estes, 2008; Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Schein, 2004).
Examining cultural models as an organizational dimension encompasses intangible and
consequential aspects of relationships between stakeholders, such as trust or lack thereof (Clark
& Estes, 2008; Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Schein, 2004). If a contingent faculty member
26
feels efficacy to work with a tenured faculty member, the cultural norms of the organization
would be seen in the cultural modeling (Gelman et al., 2022).
Cultural Settings
Cultural settings are the tangible outcomes of the cultural model in place (Clark & Estes,
2008; Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Schein, 2004). An example of this is a contingent and new
teaching faculty member assigned a task without a support system (Clark & Estes, 2008;
Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Schein, 2004). Support, quality leadership, and efficacy in the
organizational cultural model impacts positive performance for stakeholders in the organization
(Clark & Estes, 2008; Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Schein, 2004). Table 4 shows the
stakeholder’s influences and the related literature.
Stakeholders (i.e., contingent faculty) need to know the organization’s goal and how to
access support if they need. Contingent faculty need to know where to go if they need support,
have difficulties with students, or want to seek mentorship. Conceptual navigation of how school
climate works is important is systemic change (Jerald, 2021).
Contingent faculty need to know the organization’s goal of providing an innovative,
transformative, and equitable educational environment that prepares students for success and
advances a state in the west and the world. Chapter 2 provided an overview of relevant literature
and of the study’s conceptual framework. Chapter 2 also provided the KMO influences
informing the data collection in Chapter 3. Chapter 3 provides the methodological approach for
this study.
27
Table 4
Organization, Assumed Organization Influence, and Related Research
Organization Assumed organization influences Research
Resources Contingent faculty have resources (i.e., mentorship,
funding, and support) to participate in the cultural
model with compensation and clear roles assigned.
Gelman et al. (2022)
Fagan et al. (2006)
Hattie (2015)
Weijden et al. (2015)
Policies and
procedures
Contingent faculty have a clear understanding of the
policies at this university that affect their work
conditions and employment.
Hattie (2015)
Cultural
models
Contingent faculty are part of an organization that
models mentorship, leadership, and empowerment
in the workplace.
Elliott & Blair (2020)
Gelman et al. (2022)
Cultural
settings
Contingent faculty have classroom, research, and
career goals that are supported by the university.
Nina University states support for contingent
faculty work conditions, including support for
teaching, research, and developing career goals.
Elliott & Blair (2020)
Erstad et al. (2021)
Estes (2019)
Hattie (2015)
28
Chapter Three: Methodology
As explored in Chapter 1 and Chapter 2, the United States’ relationship with higher
education is a powerful dynamic in the hierarchy of teaching and the values U.S culture places
on students and faculty (Nica, 2018). From preschool to higher education, one’s labor and heart
for teaching does not always reflect the status they are given as an educator. During recent events
(i.e., remote learning during the shutdown due to the COVID-19 global pandemic), higher
education educators, like lecturers and contingent professors, were pivotal in student adjustment
and learning (Heriyanto et al., 2022; Hull, 2021). Those who worked with students and managed
classrooms were on the front lines with students navigating online education amid a time of
trauma. Support in higher education for contingent faculty, or lack thereof, must be moved to the
forefront of social justice in higher education.
The purpose of this study was to conduct a gap analysis to understand the experiences of
contingent faculty and their satisfaction at Nina University by uncovering data to examine work
conditions and implement a plan to fill the professional gaps to ensure an improved culture, if
necessary, for those teaching in contingent track positions. Contingent faculty have been an
instrumental part of Nina University and all its entities. Nina University needs quality teachers
who have a passion for working with students and contributing innovative pedagogy to the
institution. Because a college has many moving parts (i.e., research, funding, students, teaching),
it is critical to validate classroom educators. Support for these faculty members must be assessed
in the ever-changing landscape of higher education and because of the national teacher shortage.
The gap analysis examined the implementation of change with openness to allow the data
to illuminate participants’ experiences. The research questions were inspired by the literature
review and the problem of practice I overviewed in Chapters 1 and 2. Two research questions
guided this study:
29
1. What are the motivational and knowledge influences that contribute to the supportive
work environment for contingent faculty at Nina University?
2. What are the organizational influences of contingent faculty satisfaction with their
employment status at Nina University?
Recommendations from the findings will be made to the Nina University to implement to
improve the working conditions for contingent faculty.
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis is a conceptual framework used to comprehend
where an organization is and where the gaps are related to where they need to go. Clark and
Estes’s conceptual framework helps identify influences that need to be uncovered to improve
policies and cultural settings. This framework has three influences—knowledge, motivation, and
organizational (KMO)—that can identify the driving factors of a stakeholder’s experience. These
three influences were defined, assessed, and explored throughout this study’s five chapters.
In the current study, I adapted Clark and Estes’s (2008) framework as an evaluation to
determine the possible need for support or continuous improvement for contingent faculty at
Nina University. Figure 1 visually represents the gap analysis process (Clark & Estes, 2008),
showing the relationships between the three influences to improve policies. The cyclical nature
of goals, current achievement, and gaps are examined through KMO policies.
30
Figure 1
Gap Analysis Process
Clark and Estes’s (2008) gap analysis is a conceptual framework for assessing how an
organization exists with its stakeholders and actions for determining gaps for future possible
developments. Data collected using gap analysis can help establish a deep understanding of how
the organization exists in the present. Furthermore, gap analysis can help to determine goals and
stakeholder needs to accomplish the organization’s overall mission. In this study, Clark and
Estes’s framework was adapted as the potential need for support or continuous improvement for
contingent faculty at Nina University. The first influence described in this work was knowledge.
As discussed in Chapter 2, knowledge assessment includes the following influences—
factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive (Krathwohl, 2002)—broken down by
influence type, influence, and description. Conceptual learning theory examines one’s
understanding of categories, principals, and structures in an organization. The understanding of
31
how to teach a course and recognize best practices to serve students is grounded in conceptual
knowledge. The conceptual knowledge of contingent faculty needs to be assessed in and out of
the classroom to give faculty an opportunity to reflect and observe their own conceptual
knowledge in the classroom and how it impacts student learning. The conceptual knowledge of
how to work with students and faculty is essential to their efficacy and ability to seek support.
Krathwohl (2002) defined procedural knowledge as understanding steps, process, and
tasks. Understanding the “dos and don’ts” of teaching in higher education and the norms is
procedural knowledge. Classroom management, department responsibilities, and interactions
with students as a college instructor or professor is procedural knowledge. This ability is a skill
one works on over time, and they can benefit from mentorship and clear guidelines.
Metacognitive knowledge was discussed via the lens of the stakeholder group of
contingent faculty. The epistemological experience of a tenured faculty’s conceptual knowledge
versus a contingent faculty is key. Emotional work (e.g., reflection, goals) falls under this
category of important knowledge. Procedural knowledge was one of the learning theories used in
this study. Understanding the shared knowledge of all stakeholders in the Nina University faculty
(i.e., contingent or tenured faculty and others) is procedural knowledge. Examples of this can
include onboarding new faculty members and reporting faculty attendance to the registrar.
Table 5 includes survey items and interview questions created using the lens of
knowledge assessment (Krathwohl, 2002). Conceptual, procedural, and metacognition
knowledge assessment items explored assumed knowledge influences and provided examples of
survey items and interview questions.
32
Table 5
Knowledge, Influences, Survey Items, and Interview Questions
Knowledge Assumed
knowledge
influences
Survey item Interview question
Conceptual Faculty need to
understand the
courses and
teaching
strategies to
best serve their
students.
I, as a contingent faculty
member, feel that I
have a teaching
pedagogy that is
grounded in accurate
concepts and serves my
students.
In what ways do your courses
and teaching practices best
serve your students?
Procedural Faculty need to
know how to
seek advice,
mentorship,
and strategies
to teach college
students.
I, as a contingent faculty
member, know how to
seek advice,
mentorship, and
resources to best
instruct my courses.
What is the process like for
you to seek help and
resources to ensure your
teaching and research
practices are serving
yourself and your students?
Metacognition Faculty need to
know how to
reflect on their
student
feedback and
pedagogy.
I, as a contingent faculty
member, have the tools
and understanding to
reflect on student
feedback and
implement change to
my pedagogy when
needed.
How do you reflect on
teaching evaluations and
ensure your pedagogy
reflects student voice?
Do you reflect on your
teaching to adapt pedagogy
to meet the needs of your
students?
33
Motivation assessment includes the following influences: self-efficacy, attributions, goal
orientation, and mood (Clark & Estes, 2008). Motivation assessment can be a useful tool to
observe willingness, communication, and how one shows up in their organization. Establishing
motivational assessments in a study can allow data to eliminate intrinsic goals one may have and
how one feels in their organization or role. These findings in motivational assessment can
provide insight into culture, communication, and impacts on stakeholder groups such as students
when examining the motivational goals of their educators.
Self-efficacy as a motivation assessment seeks to understand a stakeholder’s confidence
and mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2008). This is a challenging motivation assessment to observe;
however, it is important because an individual with high self-efficacy was shown to have more
willingness to persist, engage in challenging tasks, and have resilience (Clark & Estes, 2008),
which can have a relationship with attribution, another aspect of motivation assessment.
When one attributes success and/or failure to effort rather than ability, there can be better
outcomes in performance and future in an organization (Clark & Estes, 2008). Motivation,
learning, and performance are hindered if one attributes their success and failure to their overall
ability or if they view success or failure as out of their control. Improvement and growth can be
present for a stakeholder in an organization if they attribute their behavior to intention and effort
rather than a fixed mindset.
Goal orientation through a motivational lens allows insight into the kind of praise and
feedback one relates to and in a setting that suits the stakeholder (Clark & Estes, 2008). The
setting (i.e., public or private) and method of giving feedback (i.e., praise, constructive criticism)
can be an important factor in one’s motivation in an organization (see Table 6).
34
Table 6
Motivation, Assumed Motivation Influences, Survey Items, and Interview Questions
Motivation Assumed motivation
influences
Survey item Interview question
Self-efficacy Contingent faculty need
to know the
organization’s goal
and how to access
support if they need.
Contingent faculty are
confident in their
ability to implement
the goal.
Contingent faculty must
have the self-
confidence to teach
what they have been
hired to do by the
university.
I feel confident in my
ability as a contingent
faculty member to
implement goals of the
organization?
What tools has your
organization provided
you to have confidence
in your ability to teach
effectively for
students?
Attributions Contingent faculty
attribute their students’
success to their ability
to effectively teach
their curriculum.
I attribute my students’
success to my ability
to teach curriculum in
a student-centered
pedagogical approach.
How do you measure
your ability to teach
curriculum in a
student-centered
pedagogical approach?
Goal
orientation
The contingent faculty
prioritize self-
improvement and
goals in their own
work and how they
create equity for their
students in their own
classroom.
As a contingent faculty
member, I have goals
about self-
improvement, growth,
and my career at Nina
University.
In what ways do your
goals in your role and
professionalism at
Nina University
influence other
stakeholders and goals
at the organization?
Mood Contingent faculty need
to feel positive about
support. This
stakeholder needs to
believe their work is
valued and important.
I feel supported on a
scale of 1–5 as a
nonfaculty member at
Nina University.
How do you feel about
the support you receive
as a contingent faculty
member at Nina
University?
In Chapter 2, I discussed relevant literature and the KMO influences. When examining
stakeholder experiences of support, it is important to examine the organization’s culture. The
35
organization’s culture is vital to each stakeholder and often has nonapparent influences that
speak volumes to the successes and failures that may exist. Cultural models, policies and
procedures, cultural settings, and resources are explored in Table 2 to assess the assumed
organizational influences of contingent faculty at Nina University.
Resources can be understood as material and nonmaterial support for stakeholders while
questioning them in the organizational pillar. Material support can be funding, compensation,
gifts, and opportunities a person can physically hold or account for. Nonmaterial resources are
more abstract, such as relationships, mentorships, feelings of support, and clarity about rules and
responsibilities.
Policies and procedures are the understood norms of an organization. It is important that
one understands the rules and regulations of the organization for feelings of belonging and
success. Policies and procedures could be policies of employment, alignment with and
understanding of the overall mission, and deep understanding of the code of conduct. Policies
and procedure literacy might be macro and micro examples that combine as an important aspect
of existing in an organization. An example of a macro policy or procedure might be the
expectation of conduct of a contingent professor, and a micro policy or procedure could be
understanding what an incomplete contract is for grading and its appropriate use.
Cultural models can be described as the overall culture and feeling of an organization.
These are the values, beliefs, cultures, and cocultures of the organization. Feeling empowered
versus disenfranchised can be understood through examining the cultural model. The cultural
setting of an organization is what one may want to accomplish in the cultural model. A
stakeholder having ambition to grow and belong to the organization long term and with ambition
should be a goal in an organization’s cultural model. Rewards for employees, decisions about
protocols, and the mission statement are examples of the cultural setting. The steps and
36
leadership to make that known and provided to each stakeholder is in the fabric of the cultural
model. Feeling a part of and important in an organization is key to growth and overall success of
the business or organization (see Table 7).
37
Table 7
Organization, Assumed Organization Influences, Survey Items, and Interview Questions
Organization Assumed organization
influences
Survey item Interview question
Resources Contingent faculty
have resources (i.e.,
mentorship, funding,
and support) to
participate in the
cultural model with
compensation and
clear roles assigned.
On a scale of 1–5, I have
access to adequate
resources (i.e.,
mentorship, funding,
and support) to
participate in the
cultural model with
compensation and clear
roles assigned.
How do/do you not have
access to resources (i.e.,
mentorship, funding,
and support) to
participate in the
cultural model with
compensation and clear
roles assigned.
Policies and
procedures
Contingent faculty
have a clear
understanding of the
policies at this
university. The
policies and
procedures of Nina
University align with
its mission statement
and code of conduct.
I have a clear
understanding of
policies and procedures
at Nina University.
How have you been
prepared to fulfill
procedures and practices
at Nina University to
serve the overall
mission statement?
Cultural
models
Contingent faculty are
part of an
organization that
models mentorship,
leadership, and
empowerment in the
workplace.
I feel empowerment in
the workplace.
As a contingent faculty
member, I feel part of
an organization that
models leadership and
mentorship in the
workplace.
How does your
organization model
leadership and
mentorship in the
workplace?
If not, how do you see this
lacking?
Cultural
settings
Contingent faculty
have classroom,
research, and career
goals supported by
the university.
As a contingent faculty
member, I feel my
career goals (i.e.,
research, teaching,
individual goals) are
supported by the
university.
How does your
organization support
your career goals that
are supported by the
university (i.e., teaching,
research, professional
development)?
38
Participating Stakeholders and Sample Selection
Sampling
Sampling criteria for this study required participants be contingent faculty members at
Nina University. I sampled a group with an appropriate relationship to the research instrument,
which was vital for ethical results (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). I aimed to amplify the voices of
those studied based on the selection of the contingent faculty I recruited. Participants needed to
be adjunct faculty, full-time lecturers, lecturers, or any visiting faculty without tenure privileges.
This sample with access to the survey needed to be from any academic department in the College
of Arts and Sciences (COAS), as long as they were affiliated with Nina University. The
estimated population that fit these criteria included at least 200–250 faculty members who
received an email with an invitation to participate in the study from their chair. To maximize the
participation rate and ensure the population understood how and why they were important
stakeholders in this inquiry, convenience and clear communication was provided in a recruitment
letter approved by the IRB (Lindlof & Taylor, 2011).
Recruitment
For this study, the sampling strategy engaged contingent faculty through several
organizations at Nina University such as the adjunct faculty cohort, the CTL, and the COAS.
Creating several routes of communication for recruitment maximized the response rate. Chairs
from sociology, English, and other COAS departments were sent an email inviting their
contingent faculty members to answer the survey. The list of email addresses of the chairs was
available through the COAS at Nina University. The CTL also had access to this information and
shared it with contingent faculty members in the COAS.
Recruitment needed to be voluntary; therefore, email addresses were obtained through the
CTL and COAS. The research instrument did not require email addresses to deploy the survey.
39
To gain participant demographic data, the survey included questions to be coded to understand
more about the population. A follow-up interview was available to survey participants. Upon
submission of the survey, participants received an invitation to follow up with me to schedule an
interview if they chose to participate. They were given my name, contact information, and a link
to schedule an appointment held via Zoom.
Instrumentation
Instrumentation used for this study was a quantitative survey with an optional follow-up
qualitative interview. Using mixed methods allowed me to identify themes and experiences to
answer the research questions formed based on the three pillars of Clark and Estes’s (2008)
framework. Coding took place using both survey answers and qualitative interview data. Data
analysis consisted of organizing, coding, and interpreting the data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Survey Design
Survey questions were developed to answer the research questions overviewed in
Chapters 1 and 2. Clark and Estes’s (2008) framework was the focal point of creating survey and
interview questions to assess understanding of stakeholder (i.e., contingent faculty) perspectives
and stories of support, or lack thereof, at Nina University.
The survey included 11 quantitative questions to be coded in the analysis process of the
study. The process to develop these 11 questions included grounding the research in works like
Robinson and Leonard’s (2019) study for guidance. Understanding the future participant and
anticipating their reaction to the survey was important for developing the phrasing and
appropriateness (Robinson & Leonard, 2019). The survey included 11 questions that could be
answered with “yes,” “no,” and a 5-point Likert scale. The time anticipated for participation in
the survey was 15 minutes. The survey protocol and questions are available in Appendix A.
40
Interview Protocol Design
The interview protocol was outlined in the recruitment email and provided at the end of
the survey (see Appendices B and C). The consent form is available in Appendix D. In addition
to the interview protocol, I gave each participant an information sheet for exempt research (see
Appendix E). If participants chose to complete a follow-up interview, they could email me to set
up a 60-minute Zoom interview, which was recorded. Participants had access to the questions
beforehand and to the transcript after I conducted the interview. The goal was to have 8–12
interview volunteers. Ten volunteers were obtained for this study.
Data Collection
Following University of Southern California’s IRB approval, participants were solicited
by an email listing the purpose of the study, the rationale for receiving the email, and the survey
link. At the end of the survey, I provided my email for follow-up questions and a call for follow-
up interviews. I could see participants’ anonymous survey responses and identified each
participant using an alias (e.g., Participant A), which ensured participants’ safety and
vulnerability and an ethical implementation of analysis (Robinson & Leonard, 2019).
Surveys
Surveys were created in Google Surveys. A shareable link allowed interested participants
to answer questions using an anonymous process for data collection. Some questions (e.g.,
Question 4) were open ended and provided an option to write in content I later open coded for
thematic analysis. Other questions (e.g., Question 1) were closed questions (i.e., multiple choice
or either/or). Reminders were sent twice to participants—one was sent after 3 days and another
10 days after the survey was launched. After 2 weeks, the survey was closed. The goal of 200–
250 contingent faculty at Nina University in COAS yielded 20%–30% participation.
41
Interviews
Qualitative interview questions were developed using Lindlof and Taylor’s (2011) and
Merriam and Tisdell’s (2016) research. Understanding the role and relationship to participants
while conducting a research interview and gathering information is key to an ethical study.
Understanding the participant while remaining open to all results is important in the data analysis
process (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The qualitative interview questions were born from
expanding on the quantitative survey questions listed in the tables in Chapter 3. More narrative
and voice can be amplified through interviews if more participants volunteer.
Like the survey, I asked participants 11 interview questions. Participants were reminded
of their right to end the interview at any time and/or omit any question if they did not want to
answer. Maintaining participants’ safety and comfort was vital in this study (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Interviews were up to 60 minutes long with a series of open-ended questions approved by
IRB. These interviews were conducted on Zoom and recorded to the Cloud. I notified
interviewees that the interviews would be recorded for data collection and that the recording
would be transcribed. Appendix A includes the survey questions, Appendix B includes the
recruitment memo sent to potential participants, Appendix C includes the recruitment letter, and
Appendix D includes the interview questions.
Data Analysis
Data analysis was focused on the KMO influences, and data were coded for thematic
relevance and emergent themes. Survey and interview questions were created and grounded in
one of the three KMO pillars and analyzed together and in relationship to one another. I discuss
themes in Chapter 4 of this study and recommendations in Chapter 5.
For surveys, I collected data provided by contingent faculty in the COAS at Nina
University for 2 weeks. After the time for the survey to be available, I closed the responses and
42
used social scientific approaches to analyze two different kinds of survey questions prompted.
Some questions were “yes/no” questions, and other questions asked participants to rank their
responses on a scale of 1 to 5. Some survey questions (e.g., Question 1) were analyzed as “yes/
no” or left blank. Some questions (e.g., Question 4) were analyzed on a scale of 1 to 5, finding an
average of participant responses.
Participants were interviewed on Zoom, interviews were recorded, and a transcription
was created for coding. Survey questions were grounded in the three pillars of KMO. Interviews
consisted of questions approved by IRB. Interviews were coded alongside participants’ survey
responses. Meaningful participant quotes were included in the description of the study’s findings
to bring voice to the stakeholder group’s experiences.
Trustworthiness of Data
To maintain the study’s credibility and trustworthiness, a deep reflection of qualitative
and quantitative study ethics was reviewed. Strategies to ensure trustworthiness and ethical
behavior understand the role of the researcher as a primary research instrument (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). The role of the research instrument is to create a study with reliability, including
the responsibility of cross checking and comparing at least two types of data collection methods
(i.e., quantitative survey, qualitative interview).
The research instrument is responsible for maintaining participant safety and anonymity
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As such, the survey was anonymous. Interviews were conducted
with participants who reached out to me if they were open to a follow-up conversation. The
survey and interview follow-up questions were vetted by IRB and grounded in the study.
Role of Investigator
I created this study with an ethical methodology. As the investigator, it was important to
acknowledge my own positionality. I am a cisgender, White, young, female, temporary lecturer
43
at Nina University. Regarding conducting interviews, the investigator’s role is to be a mindful
and respectful listener (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Ethics and procedures are the researcher’s
responsibility, and keeping participants at the forefront of the safety of the study must be
prioritized (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). My professional position at Nina University as a
contingent faculty member required me to be aware of any bias I may have had. Therefore, I
checked my bias throughout the research process and understood this was a delimitation.
Limitations and Delimitations
Study limitations included the study’s short timeframe, limits in mixed methods and
qualitative research, and the small sample size. Faculty participating in this study were all from
Nina University in the COAS. As such, other colleges (e.g., College of Engineering) and
programs (e.g., nursing, respiratory therapy) at Nina University were not included. Some
contingent faculty members may not have taught at the time of this study and therefore missed
the opportunity to have their voice represented in the data. For example, many contingent faculty
members teach exclusively in the fall semester or have full-time jobs outside the university.
The social contract of knowing some, but not all, participants as colleagues or working at
the same university may have limited how direct and forthcoming their answers were.
Contingent faculty may have been concerned about the status of their job or making a complaint
with retribution, so participants may have filtered their answers. Because I also was a contingent
faculty member of Nina University, participants may have catered their responses to connect
with me more than they would have with someone outside higher education.
44
Chapter Four: Results and Findings
Following the University of Southern California’s IRB approval, I solicited participants
using an email listing the purpose of the study, the rationale for receiving the email, and the
survey link. At the end of the survey, I provided my email for follow-up questions and a call for
follow-up interviews. The survey reminder encouraged participation in an open call for
interviews, which resulted in 10 interview participants. I could see participants’ anonymous
survey responses and identified each participant using an alias (e.g., Participant A), which
ensured participants’ safety and vulnerability as well as an ethical implementation of analysis
(Robinson & Leonard, 2019).
First, I created surveys in Google Surveys. I sent a shareable link to potential participants
who wanted to answer questions in an anonymous process of data collection. Seventy-four
individuals completed the survey. Qualitative interview questions were developed using Lindlof
and Taylor’s (2011) and Merriam and Tisdell’s (2016) research. Understanding my role and
relationship to participants while conducting interviews and gathering information was key to an
ethical study. Understanding participants while remaining open to all results was important in the
data analysis process (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The qualitative interview questions were born
from expanding on the quantitative survey questions listed in the tables in Chapter 3. More
narrative and voice were amplified when participants volunteered to be interviewed.
Those who chose to participate in the interview were asked 12 interview questions.
Participants were given the protocol, completed the informed consent, and were reminded of
their right to end the interview at any time or to omit any question if they did not want to answer.
Participants in this study took between 25–60 minutes to complete the interview. Interviews were
conducted on Zoom and recorded to the Cloud. I notified interviewees that interviews were
recorded for data collection and that the recording would be transcribed.
45
Multiple sources of quantitative and qualitative data were collected to validate the
assumed causes. Survey and interview data were collected to understand KMO challenges for
contingent faculty experiences at Nina University. Data were collected using mixed methods
(i.e., quantitative and qualitative). The anonymous survey sent to participants who taught on a
contingent basis at Nina University was quantitative.
The survey was distributed to the target population by means of a scripted email
approved by University of Southern California’s IRB and Nina University’s CTL department
chairs of the COAS as well as the dean’s office at Nina University. This survey reached all active
contingent faculty in COAS. The email was distributed to 382 faculty members in COAS. The
survey was sent first followed by a call for an optional follow-up interview for interested
participants. Results of the data analysis are presented using Clark and Estes’s (2008) KMO
influences.
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholders recruited for the survey included contingent faculty in Nina
University’s COAS, including lecturers, adjuncts, and contingent identified faculty serving as
educators at this university. The assumed cause for them wanting to participate was the study
examined support, or lack of support, of their experiences. This study provided an opportunity to
share their experiences and stories. Participants were anonymous, and their email addresses were
not collected. Participants had to be in the COAS and current contingent faculty members at
Nina University.
Participants in this study were contingent faculty members at Nina University’s COAS.
The dean’s office identified 382 individuals as current contingent faculty. Based on the
anonymous nature of the survey, it was not possible to know who opened the survey or left it
unread. The survey and interview questions did not ask about demographic data. The only
46
criterion was participants needed to identify as a current contingent faculty member in the
college. Approximately 13% of those who received the email participated.
Seventy-four of 382 (i.e., approximately 19%) members elected to participate in the
survey distributed by the COAS and departments. Study participants represented different
departments across the COAS and thus provided diverse perspectives. Ten participants agreed to
participate in the follow-up interview. Eight of 10 interviewees referred to the survey in their
answers for the interview questions. The survey was open for 2 weeks, and COAS leaders at
Nina University sent out one reminder.
Table 7 provides participants’ letters as coded in the interviews, approximate years of
teaching or experience in the field, and current department. I did not collect other identifying
factors about participants aside from their status as contingent faculty. Participants were not
asked identifying questions or asked to state their departments. Information in Table 8 provides
context for which participants shared these data while prioritizing their anonymity.
47
Table 8
Participant Information
Participant letter
(pseudonym)
Years of teaching (estimate/field
experience shared
Department
Participant A 20 Theater arts, music, and humanities
Participant B 30 English, literature, and writing
Participant C 10 Social science
Participant D 6 Social science
Participant E 7 Communication, public speaking,
conflict management
Participant F 10 Communication, public speaking,
conflict management
Participant G 20 English, literature, and writing
Participant H 5 Communication, public speaking,
conflict management
Participant I 20 English, literature, and writing
Participant J 7 Interdisciplinary
Findings
Findings are presented by reintroducing the research questions, categorizing the
determination of assets and needs, and grounding the data in the mixed method rationale. Each
influence is categorized by the KMO model while sharing rationale of both quantitative and
qualitative findings. Summaries are provided in each influence with an explanation of the
influence as an asset or need.
48
Research Question 1
The first research question asked: What motivational and knowledge influences
contribute to the supportive work environment for contingent faculty at Nina University? This
study produced results and findings grounded in KMO influences. These influences are explored
and explained in Chapters 2 and 3. The data collected involved a mixed methods approach of a
quantitative survey with a qualitative interview.
Research Question 2
The second research question asked: What are the organizational influences of contingent
faculty satisfaction with their employment status at Nina University? This study produced results
and findings grounded in KMO influences. These influences are explored and explained in
Chapters 2 and 3. The data collected involved a mixed methods approach of a quantitative survey
with a qualitative interview.
Determination of Assets and Needs
The data sources were answers to the survey and the 10 interviews conducted. To ensure
enough voices and perspectives were present in the data, I made a goal of interviewing at least 10
participants. The sample of contingent faculty in the COAS at Nina University provided an
opportunity to conduct interviews from different departments. Although I did not collect
identifiers during the interviews, all participants I interviewed were given a pseudonym.
Participants’ perspectives provided both emerging themes and differences to enrich the data. The
study used a mixed methods evaluation. The survey provided quantitative data, and the
interviews provided narrative and perspective in response to subsequent questions.
A weighted total (WT) was used to determine if a finding was an asset or a need. If the
WT was under 80%, the finding was coded as a “need.” If the WT was 80% or above, it was
coded as an asset. The higher weight assigned to the interviews was due to the depth of responses
49
each participant provided. Formula 1 was used to calculate the WT for all influences. Due to the
low number of survey respondents, the survey was weighted at 20%, and the interview was
weighted at 80%. Formula 1 was as follows:
WT = (Survey % * Survey Weight) + (Interview % * Interview Weight) (1)
Survey % refers to the proportion of positive responses to a question over the total responses.
Interview % refers to the determined number of favorable responses to an interview question
over the total number of responses.
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes
In this study, results shed light on the experiences of contingent faculty and their
relationship with support at Nina University. Results from this study can add to a larger
conversation about supporting educators, dismantling a problematic system of hierarchy in
higher education, and supporting students.
The following influences for knowledge were assessed: factual, conceptual, procedural,
and metacognitive (Krathwohl, 2002). Questions 1–3 in the survey were grounded in knowledge
as a concept. I also categorized three questions in the interviews as knowledge questions. Survey
results for this study are discussed and shown in Figures 2–4. The figures and summaries provide
a description the data found in the survey first followed by the interview findings.
Conceptual Knowledge
Influence 1
Faculty need to understand the courses and teaching strategies to best serve their students.
The conceptual knowledge survey question asked participants to address the following
statement: “I, as a contingent faculty member, feel that I have a teaching pedagogy that is
grounded in accurate concepts and serves my students” (see Figure 2). The conceptual
50
knowledge interview question asked: “In what ways do your courses and teaching practices best
serve your students?”
Figure 2
Knowledge Survey Question: Conceptual Knowledge
51
Survey Results. Figure 2 includes data from 74 participants. About 97% of respondents
answered “yes”—their teaching pedagogy was grounded in accurate concepts that serve their
students. Over 2% of participants did not report feeling they were grounded in accurate concepts
to serve their students in their pedagogy. This figure shows participants’ confidence in teaching
pedagogy grounded in perceived accurate concepts that serve students.
Interview Findings. All 10 participants reported using teaching pedagogy grounded in
student-centered pedagogy. Participant A reported, “I do this job because I love the students. I
reinvent the class each semester to make it better for them.” Participant D described the student-
centered approach to learning as a strategy echoed in other interviews as well. Participant D
shared, “I do constant reflection and surveys for my students to see how they are doing in my
class. I make them anonymous and make the changes as needed.” Participants I and G also
reported creating midsemester evaluations not required by Nina University to make changes to
the courses to best serve their students. Participant B shared evidence from their classroom
regarding student-centered pedagogy based on communication from their students. They said:
They tend to produce work that they tell me they’re proud of. So, I mean, that’s like
maybe the hardest measure I have. The soft measure is simply my classes rely on a lot of
you know, I know my students’ names. I will try to talk with them all individually at least
once this semester.
Summary
To assess the need or motivation for conceptual knowledge, Formula 1 was applied to the
qualitative and quantitative data. The assumed influence of conceptual knowledge was assessed
by both survey results and interviews. The survey, weighed at 20%, and the interview, weighed
at 80% determined this influence was an asset.
52
Procedural Knowledge
Influence 1
Faculty need to know how to seek advice, mentorship, and strategies to teach college
students. The procedural knowledge survey question asked participants to address the following
statement: “I, as a contingent faculty member, know how to seek advice, mentorship, and
resources to best instruct my courses” (see Figure 3). The procedural knowledge interview
question was: “What is the process like for you to seek help and resources to ensure your
teaching and research practices are serving yourself and your students?”
Survey Results. Figure 3 provides the data showing 72 participants answered the second
question of the survey. Approximately 92% of participants indicated they knew how to seek
advice, mentorship, and resources to best instruct their courses. Alternatively, 8.3% of
participants responded they did not know how to seek advice, mentorship, and resources to best
instruct their courses.
53
Figure 3
Knowledge Survey Question: Procedural Knowledge
Interview Findings. Interview findings showed 90% of participants (9 of 10) reported
dissatisfaction with the process, or lack thereof, to access resources and help in teaching.
Participant C gave an important insight about this feeling of lacking advice, mentorship, and
strategies to teach college students when they said, “Zero. I feel that I get none of this and I have
taught for over a decade.” Other participants echoed similar sentiments, such as Participant D,
who shared, “I feel that if I didn’t know people in my department outside of work, I wouldn’t
have any idea where to go or who to ask questions.” Participant J shared, “[It is] only because
I’ve found the people that I know the answers, and then they help me get what I need. I had to
find them on my own.”
Summary
To assess the need or motivation for procedural knowledge, Formula 1 was applied to the
qualitative and quantitative data. The assumed influence of procedural knowledge was assessed
54
by both survey results and interviews. The survey, weighed at 20%, and the interview, weighed
at 80%, determined this influence was a need.
Metacognitive Knowledge
Influence 1
Faculty need to know how to reflect on their student feedback and pedagogy. The
metacognitive knowledge survey question asked participants to address the following statement:
“I, as a contingent faculty member, have the tools and understanding to reflect on student
feedback and implement change to my pedagogy when needed” (see Figure 4). The
metacognitive knowledge interview questions asked: “How do you reflect on teaching
evaluations and ensure your pedagogy reflects student voice? Do you reflect on your teaching to
adapt pedagogy to meet the needs of your students?”
Survey Results. Figure 4 provides the data showing 73 participants answered the third
question on the survey, the final question listed as a knowledge question. Approximately 15% of
participants reported “no” to this question, and approximately 85% reported “yes.”
Figure 4
Knowledge Survey Question: Metacognitive Knowledge
55
Interview Findings. Participants had various responses to the questions. Examples of the
different responses are as follows. Participant A shared, “If I am honest, I don’t even look at the
evaluations anymore.” Participant C said:
Students get really upset and frustrated and feel like it’s too much, so they feel kind of
like the evaluations are helpful in some regard to kind of build up my confidence. But
then also it feels like a no win. and on some level. Also like it, it can feel like an
opportunity for students to just lash out at me in an anonymous way.
Participant J shared, “I don’t see the point of looking at their evaluations because students share
whether they ‘like or dislike’ the instructor, rather than give genuine feedback.” Participant I
stated, “I have a process now after many years of teaching. I must be emotionally done with the
class and have time to reflect objectively. Right after the semester is too fresh.”
Summary
To assess the need or motivation for metacognition knowledge, Formula 1 was applied to
the qualitative and quantitative data. The assumed influence of metacognition knowledge was
assessed by both survey results and interviews. The survey, weighed at 20%, and the interview,
weighed at 80%, determined this influence was a need.
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes
This study examined motivation in the KMO model to understand support, or lack of
support, experienced by contingent faculty at Nina University. Motivation assessment includes
the following influences: self-efficacy, attributions, goal orientation, and mood (Clark & Estes,
2008). Findings in motivational assessment provide insight about culture, communication, and
impacts on stakeholder groups (e.g., students) when examining their educators’ motivational
goals. The following influences for motivation were self-efficacy, attribution, goal orientation,
56
and mood (Krathwohl, 2002). To assess “need or asset” in the motivational causes, this study
used Formula 1.
Self-Efficacy
Influence 1
Contingent faculty need to know the organization’s goal and how to access support if
they need it. Contingent faculty are confident in their ability to implement the goal.
Influence 2
Contingent faculty must have the self-confidence to teach what they have been hired to
teach by the university. The survey question on self-efficacy asked participants to address the
following statement: “I feel confident in my ability as a contingent faculty member to implement
goals of the organization” (see Figure 5). The interview question about self-efficacy asked:
“What tools has your organization provided you to have confidence in your ability to teach
effectively for students?”
Figure 5
Motivation Survey Question: Self Efficacy
57
Survey Results. Figure 5 provides data showing 74 participants answered the question
on self-efficacy. Data showed 23 of 74 participants answered 1–2 (i.e., disagree) or 3 (i.e.,
neutral) for this question. Approximately 69% of participants chose the ranking of 4 or 5 (i.e.,
agree or strongly agree) regarding feeling confident in their ability as a contingent faculty
member to implement goals in their workplace. Therefore, 69% of respondents had a strong
sense of self-efficacy, which was the majority.
Interview Findings. When discussing Nina University, participants did not report having
confidence as a contingent faculty member to implement goals in their workplace based on the
tools their organization provided. The CTL came up in many interviews and threads through
multiple influences. Eighty percent of participants identified the CTL as a vital tool in their
experience. Participant B shared, “I utilize the CTL all the time. They are invaluable to learning
as an educator.” Each participant made it clear they only accessed this resource on their own
volition and were not compensated for their time. When asked the interview question grounded
in this influence, participants often interpreted the question as outside confidence in their
teaching or their role at the university giving them reasons to lack confidence. Participant J
shared the contingent nature of their teaching contract added doubt to their efficacy when they
said, “I just must wait each semester to see if I am asked back. It’s stressful and makes me feel
like I am walking on eggshells.”
Summary
To assess the need or motivation for self-efficacy, Formula 1 was applied to the
qualitative and quantitative data. The assumed influence of self-efficacy was assessed by both
survey results and interviews. The survey, weighed at 20%, and the interview, weighed at 80%,
determined this influence was a need.
58
Attributions
Influence
Contingent faculty attribute their students’ success to their ability to teach their
curriculum effectively (see Figure 6). The survey question on attributions asked participants to
address the following statement: “I attribute my students’ success to my ability to teach
curriculum in a student-centered pedagogical approach. The interview question on attribution
asked: “How do you measure your ability to teach curriculum in a student-centered pedagogical
approach?”
Survey Results. Figure 6 provides data from 74 participants who answered the question
with a high level of confidence. Overall, 84% of participants attributed their students’ success to
their ability to teach curriculum in a student-centered environment.
Figure 6
Motivation Survey Question: Attributions
59
Interview Findings. When asked about their pedagogical approaches to teaching and if
student-centered instruction was a priority, all 10 faculty members reported agreement.
Participants gave examples of mentoring students, being accommodating, learning new teaching
approaches, and loving their jobs when discussing student centered instruction. Participant J
shared, “I am a first–generation college student and I like to help other students I know have the
same background get through the challenging class I teach. I always have their experience in
mind in my class” Participant E shared, “I change the class each semester to make sure it’s up to
date on what my current students need and how I can best support their individual learning.”
Summary
The assumed influence of asset motivation was assessed by both survey results and
interviews. The survey, weighed at 20%, and the interview, weighed at 80%, determined this
influence was an asset.
Goal Orientation
Influence
The contingent faculty prioritize self-improvement and goals in their own work and how
they create equity for their students in their own classroom (see Figure 7). The survey question
on goal orientation asked participants to address the following statement: “As a nontenured
faculty member, I have goals about self-improvement, growth, and my career at my workplace.”
The interview question on goal orientation asked: “In what ways do your own goals in your role
and professionalism at Nina University influence other stakeholders and goals at the
organization?”
60
Figure 7
Motivational Survey Question: Goal Orientation
Survey Results. Approximately 80% of contingent faculty in this study reported having
goals of self-improvement, growth, and their career at Nina University. Contingent faculty who
participated in the survey reported higher agreement with goals of self-improvement, growth,
and their career at this institution. Over 20% of survey participants said “no” for self-
improvement and their career goals at their workplace, which was higher than I hypothesized.
Interview Findings. Approximately 80% of participants interviewed shared they
believed their professionalism at Nina University influenced other stakeholders (e.g., students,
administrators, other faculty). These participants also were unclear of their goals in relation to
the overall organization. Participant J shared, “I honestly do not know the goals of the
organization or what anyone else is doing. I feel left out.” Participant C felt their role at the
university and professionalism was influential to the goal of the university and to the overall
community. Communication with other contingent faculty and helping students was mainly the
theme of their sense of connection to their goals and others.
61
Some participants had concern and dismay about career growth at Nina University.
Participants A, D, and H used the term “cobble together” about their careers as contingent
faculty at this university. These participants shared they must “cobble together” a career out of
being contingent because they felt there was a ceiling for their growth. An example of this was
when Participant D shared, “I am cobbling together a career. I teach not just at this university but
others as well to make ends meet.” Sentiments like this were prevalent in the interviews overall.
The qualitative interviews gave context about participants’ experiences with their career
trajectory. Participants provided detail about their career experiences as contingent faculty and
the “cap” many of them felt. This was evidenced in Participant F’s statement when they shared,
“I have worked here for 10 years and feel like no one expects me to go anywhere.”
Summary
To assess the need or motivation for goal orientation, Formula 1 was applied to the
qualitative and quantitative data. The assumed influence of goal orientation was assessed by both
survey results and interviews. The survey, weighed at 20%, and the interview, weighed at 80%,
determined this influence was a need.
Mood
Influence 1
Contingent faculty need to feel positive about support. This stakeholder needs to believe
their work is valued and important (see Figure 8). The survey question on mood asked
participants to identify agreement on a scale of 1–5 the following statement: “I feel supported on
a scale of 1–5 as a nontenured faculty member at the university.” The interview question on
mood asked: “How do you feel about the support you receive as a contingent faculty member at
Nina University?”
62
Figure 8
Motivation Survey Question: Mood
Survey Results. The 73 participants had a wide range of answers for their feelings of
support by Nina University. The lowest number of responses (i.e., 10) was for strongly agree.
The highest reported answer was equally neutral and agree (i.e., 18).
Interview Findings. The interview question grounded in examining support appeared to
be emotional for interviewees. In 8 of the 10 interviews, participants shared the word “none” or
“no” when asked if they felt supported by their workplace. Participants F, G, and H brought up
the support they received from the CTL, but they separated this support from the support they
felt independently from Nina University. The interviews showed 70% of participants referred to
the CTL as a resource and tool for their teaching at some point in each transcript. Participant B
shared, “I cannot say enough good things about the CTL. I have grown so much as a teacher
using these workshops. I do have to seek it out myself, though.” This was echoed in Participant
H’s statement on the CTL:
63
I had a scary situation with a student and X from the CTL was the most supportive person
during that time. I don’t know what I would have done if I didn’t reach out to her when I
needed help.
Participant F shared, “I have used the CTL a lot, however I work outside of this job full time. I
am just not able to do workshops in the middle of the day.” Whenever the CTL was mentioned,
participants made it clear they “had to seek out ideas, such as the CTL, on [their] own time,”
according to Participant C.
Summary
To assess the need or motivation for mood, Formula 1 was applied to the qualitative and
quantitative data. The assumed influence of mood motivation was assessed by both survey
results and interviews. The survey, weighed at 20%, and the interview, weighed at 80%,
determined this influence was a need.
Results and Findings for Organization Causes
When examining stakeholder experiences of support, it is important to examine the
culture of the organization. The organization’s culture is vital to each stakeholder and often has
nonapparent influences that speak volumes to the successes and failures that may be present. The
following sections examine resources, policies and procedures, cultural models, and cultural
settings. To assess “need or asset” in the organization, this study used Formula 1.
Resources
Influence
Contingent faculty have resources (i.e., mentorship, funding, and support) to participate
in the cultural model with compensation and clear roles assigned (see Figure 9).
64
Figure 9
Organization Survey Question: Resources
The survey question on resources asked participants to identify agreement with the
following statement on a scale of 1–5: “I feel that I have access to adequate resources (i.e.,
mentorship, funding, and support) to participate in the cultural model with compensation and
clear roles assigned.” The interview question on mood asked: “How do/don’t you have access to
resources (i.e., mentorship, funding, and support) to participate in the cultural model with
compensation and clear roles assigned?”
Survey Results. The survey showed contingent faculty did not feel they had access to
adequate resources to participate in the cultural model with compensation and clear roles
assigned. About 24% of participants agreed or strongly agreed they had adequate resources, and
about 76% felt neutral or strongly disagreed to having access to adequate resources.
Interview Findings. Participant D shared a quote that had a common thread with the
other 10 interviewees. When asked about their access to adequate resources, they shared, “I teach
65
a lot of online classes. Basically, I am given a roster and left all alone. I feel forgotten about by
my department and the university.” Participant A shared:
They don’t give me anything. My computer is extremely old. I mean I have students
making fun of it. They don’t even know what version of windows. It is, but it’s old. I just
know that if this position were full time I would have those things, and I would have
access to ways to get those things so that I could provide a better learning environment
for those students.
Summary
To assess the need or motivation for resources, Formula 1 was applied to the qualitative
and quantitative data. The assumed influence of resources in the organization was assessed by
both survey results and interviews. The survey, weighed at 20%, and the interview, weighed at
80%, determined this influence was a need.
Policies and Procedures
Influence
Contingent faculty have a clear understanding of the policies at this university. The
policies and procedures of Nina University align with its mission statement and code of conduct
(see Figure 10). The survey question on policies and procedures asked participants the following
statement: “I have a clear understanding of policies and procedures at Nina University.” The
interview question on mood asked: “How have you been prepared to fulfill procedures and
practices at Nina University to serve the overall mission statement?”
Survey Results. The quantitative survey results showed 63.5% of participants reported a
clear understanding of policies and procedures at their workplace. Approximately 37% of
participants reported neutral or lower knowledge of their workplace policies and procedures.
66
Figure 10
Organization Survey Question: Policies and Procedures
Interview Findings. Questions on policies and procedures took the most time to answer
in all 10 interviews. Participants J and D reported no recollection of an official explanation of
rules or policies while teaching. Participant G shared, “I have been here a long time. I guess after
a while, I have just learned on the job or from others I know.” Several participants, such as
Participant I, shared they “learn[ed] as things [came] up” when it came to policies and
procedures. Participant B stated, “If I need to know how to do something, I have to go figure it
out for myself.” Forty percent of participants brought up the dean of students. They shared they
only used resources (e.g., dean of students) when a challenging situation with a student came up
in their classroom. Participant H shared, “There are none. I teach, go home, and hope for the
best. No one has explained it to me.”
Summary
To assess the need or motivation for policies and procedures, Formula 1 was applied to
the qualitative and quantitative data. The assumed influence of policies and procedures was
67
assessed by both survey results and interviews. The survey, weighed at 20%, and the interview,
weighed at 80%, determined this influence was a need.
Cultural Models
Influence 1
Contingent faculty are part of an organization that models mentorship, leadership, and
empowerment in the workplace (see Figures 11 and 12). The survey questions on cultural models
asked participants the following statements on a scale of 1 to 5: “I feel empowerment in the
workplace” and “As a contingent faculty (nontenured) member, I feel a part of an organization
that models leadership and mentorship in the workplace.” The interview question on cultural
models asked: “How does your organization model leadership and mentorship in the workplace?
If not, how do you see this lacking?”
Figure 11
Organization Survey Question 1: Cultural Models
68
Figure 12
Organization Survey Question 2: Cultural Models
Survey Results. Two questions on the survey were created to assess the influence of
cultural models. The survey question shared in Figure 11 provided a wide breadth of answers for
the feeling of empowerment of contingent faculty in COAS and Nina University. Most
respondents felt neutral or less about the empowerment they experienced at this institution.
Forty-one percent of respondents felt the need to select 4 or 5 (1 being the least, 5 being the best)
about their empowerment, leaving about 59% reporting less than 4 on the scale.
Results on Figure 12 identified half of respondents felt they were part of the organization
that modeled leadership and mentorship in the workplace, and half of respondents disagreed. Of
the 73 participants, approximately 51% reported feeling they were not part of an organization
that modeled leadership and mentorship in the workplace, leaving approximately 49% feeling
they worked in an organization that modeled leadership and mentorship in the workplace.
69
Interview Findings. Eighty percent of contingent faculty in this study reported feeling
disempowered at least at some point in the recent past in this organization in the interviews.
Participant B shared:
I feel that my job allows other people in the department to pursue their goals, and so on
some level. I feel like I don’t know if being used is the right word, but kind of being like
a steppingstone for other people to be able to reach their goals, because having lectures
gives them space to teach less. I feel like I am asked to mentor or support others without
the same in return.
Participant A shared:
I feel defeated in this job. I know a lot of us that are contingent do this because we love
our students and to teach. I feel like the university knows this and that’s why we are
treated so badly. They know we won’t leave our students and will put up with this.
The interview participants’ answers to questions on mentorship and leadership in the
organization presented data to support most survey responses. When asked questions related to
the organization and culture, participants felt they were on the edges of the university rather than
included. For example, Participant H shared, “If I were not an alumnus of the department I now
teach in, I would be left completely on my own.” Some participants, such as Participants H and
E, felt empowered by leadership in their own department (e.g., their chair or tenured professors
who mentored them). Participant E shared, “If I have a problem or need advice, I know where I
can go ask questions.”
Summary
To assess the need or motivation for cultural models, Formula 1 was applied to the
qualitative and quantitative data. The assumed influence of cultural models was assessed by both
70
survey results and interviews. The survey, weighed at 20%, and the interview, weighed at 80%,
determined this influence was a need.
Cultural Settings
Influence 1
Contingent faculty have classroom, research, and career goals supported by the university
(see Figure 13). The survey question on cultural settings asked participants the following
statement: “As a contingent faculty (nontenured) member, I feel that my career goals (i.e.,
research, teaching, and individual goals) are supported by the university.” The interview question
on cultural settings asked: “How does your organization support your career goals that are
supported by the university (i.e., teaching, research, professional development)?”
Survey Results. The survey results showed most participants felt their career goals were
supported by the university. The survey results provided a breadth of information on how
contingent faculty felt about their support, or lack thereof, at Nina University. Of 74 participants
who answered this question, 67% reported feeling neutral or lower. Only about 32% of
participants reported they agreed or strongly agreed with the question identified in Figure 13.
71
Figure 13
Organization Survey Question: Cultural Settings
Interview Findings. There was a strong emphasis for the university to invest in more
contingent faculty career goals from the interview data. Participants A and D both used the
phrase “cobbling a career together” to discuss their experiences as contingent faculty. All
contingent faculty interviewed felt “capped” in their role at the university. Participant E shared,
“I love my job, but I know that this is as far as I will be able to go because of the system.”
Several participants stated their interest in becoming more connected with the university through
research and career goals. Participant J stated, “I plan to teach well after I am the age of
retirement. I am working hard in my current career outside of academia to be able to afford to be
an educator full time.” Participant B shared, “I appreciate you asking what I want to do with this
job. No one has ever asked at this university. I have taught for decades. I wish I knew how to
respond. It’s just been so long.”
72
Summary
To assess the need or motivation for cultural settings, Formula 1 was applied to the
qualitative and quantitative data. The assumed influence of cultural setting was assessed by both
survey results and interviews. The survey, weighed at 20%, and the interview, weighed at 80%,
determined this influence was a need.
Summary of Validated Influences
Table 9 provides the process of weighing the totals for the survey (20%) and interview
data (80%) for each influence. This table examines the survey and interview questions prompted
to participants that are grounded in each influence. The survey data and transcripts I coded and
interpreted are examined in Formula 1. Tables 10, 11, and 12 show data on the KMO influences
for this study and their determination as an asset or a need.
Table 9
Assets or Needs As Determined by the Data
Influence Survey
% (S)
Survey
weight
(SW)
Interview %
(I)
Interview
weight (IW)
Weighted total
(WT)
Asset or
need
1 97.30 20.00 100.00 80.00 99.46 Asset
2 91.70 20.00 20.00 80.00 34.34 Need
3 84.90 20.00 70.00 80.00 72.98 Need
4 68.92 20.00 80.00 80.00 77.78 Need
5 83.78 20.00 100.00 80.00 96.76 Asset
6 79.50 20.00 80.00 80.00 79.90 Asset
7 38.36 20.00 40.00 80.00 39.67 Need
8 23.61 20.00 10.00 80.00 12.72 Need
9 63.51 20.00 20.00 80.00 28.70 Need
10 41.10 20.00 20.00 80.00 24.22 Need
11 50.68 20.00 40.00 80.00 42.14 Need
12 32.43 20.00 0.00 80.00 6.49 Need
73
Table 10
Knowledge Assets or Needs As Determined by the Data
Knowledge Assumed knowledge influences Asset or need
Conceptual Faculty need to understand the courses and teaching
strategies to best serve their students.
Asset
Procedural Faculty need to know how to seek advice, mentorship, and
strategies to teach college students.
Need
Metacognition Faculty need to know how to reflect on their student
feedback and pedagogy.
Need
Table 11
Motivation Assets or Needs As Determined by the Data
Motivation Assumed motivation influences Asset or need
Self-efficacy Contingent faculty need to know the organization’s goal and
how to access support if they need. Contingent faculty
are confident in their ability to implement the goal.
Contingent faculty must have the self-confidence to teach
what they have been hired to teach by the university.
Need
Attributions Contingent faculty attribute their students’ success to their
ability to effectively teach their curriculum.
Asset
Goal
orientation
The contingent faculty prioritizes self-improvement and
goals in their own work and how they create equity for
their students in their classroom.
Need
Mood Contingent faculty need to feel positive about support. This
stakeholder needs to believe their work is valued and
important.
Need
74
Table 12
Organization Assets or Needs As Determined by the Data
Organization Assumed organization influences Asset or need
Resources Contingent faculty have resources (i.e., mentorship,
funding, and support) to participate in the cultural model
with compensation and clear roles assigned.
Need
Policies and
procedures
Contingent faculty have a clear understanding of the
policies at this university. The policies and procedures of
Nina University align with its mission statement and code
of conduct.
Need
Cultural models Contingent faculty are part of an organization that models
mentorship, leadership, and empowerment in the
workplace.
Need
Cultural settings Contingent faculty have classroom, research, and career
goals that are supported by the university.
Need
Chapter 5 provides recommendations and limitations of this study. Based on Clark and
Estes’s (2008) evaluation conceptual framework, I outline in detail recommendations to improve
support for contingent faculty. The recommendations presented are grounded in empirical
evidence and conceptual frameworks. This scholarship concludes with a call to action and cites
existing literature referenced throughout the study.
75
Chapter Five: Recommendations and Evaluations
The mission of Nina University is to provide an innovative, transformative, and equitable
educational environment that prepares students for success and advances both the state and the
world. The organizational performance goal presented in this work was as follows. By spring of
2026, Nina University will have a 100% satisfaction rate by contingent faculty related to their
perceived support by their institution. Two surveys will need to be completed to determine
success and a lack of success. A pre- and post-test survey in 2025 and 2026 will be administered
to all contingent faculty teaching in Nina University’s College of Arts and Sciences (COAS).
These surveys will be used to determine the satisfaction rate of the contingent faculty.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
Many stakeholders at Nina University were the focus of this study—those teaching in the
classroom, those employed by the university, and those who have experienced the hierarchy of
historical higher educational norms. Stakeholder groups included in this scholarship included
contingent faculty (i.e., adjunct faculty combined with contingent full-time faculty), tenured
faculty, and students.
This study focused on contingent faculty. The relationship between tenured faculty and
part-time or contingent faculty was of interest in this study because this relationship often has
been strained or competitive in higher education (Brustein, 2007). This competitive norm, which
can be changed, has been grounded in hierarchy and teaching appointments. Contingent faculty
often have not been given the same prestige or power on campuses, which can lead to tension.
Recommendations to Address KMO Influences
This section provides recommendations to address gaps in the KMO areas. This study
used a gap analysis to provide solutions for identified gaps. There are four steps in Clark and
Estes’s (2008) gap analysis progress. The first step I used from this model was to assess and
76
identify the current situation. This step acknowledged how the organization presently addressed
an objective and opens perspective. The second step in the gap analysis was to set goals of how
the organization can and should end with implementation. The third step was to analyze gaps
between the current understanding of how the organization exists to how goals need to be
achieved. Examples of this process have been shown in works such as Turner’s (2020)
study. The final step was to establish a concrete plan of action to fill in gaps with a timeline, a
plan for stakeholders, and a roadmap for completion.
Knowledge Recommendations
This study identified knowledge recommendations to help gaps at Nina University with
contingent faculty support. Knowledge includes the following influences—factual, conceptual,
procedural, and metacognitive (Krathwohl, 2002)—which are fragmented by influence type,
influence, and description. Each of these learning theories grant clarity to relationships,
communication, and behaviors in an organization.
Table 13 lists the causes, priorities, principles, and recommendations (Clark & Estes,
2008). The table reviews assumed knowledge influences and whether the influences are an asset
or a need, ranks the priority as high or low, states a principal and citation, and gives a
recommendation. The recommendations ground the principal and citation to this evaluation
study. Then, a detailed discussion for each high priority cause and recommendation and the
literature supporting the recommendation are provided.
77
Table 13
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Table 13 includes a summary of knowledge influences and recommendations and shows
two needs with high priority. The high priority causes validated in this study are as follows:
• Procedural: A tenured faculty is paired with a contingent faculty each semester (i.e.,
fall and spring) to give mutual feedback and observe teaching methods.
Assumed
knowledge
influence
Asset
or
need
Priority
high or
low
Principle and citation Context-specific
recommendation
Conceptual:
Faculty need to
understand the
courses and
teaching
strategies to best
serve their
students.
Asset Low Targeting training and
instruction between an
individual’s
independent
performance level and
their level of assisted
performance promotes
optimal learning
(Scott & Palincsar,
2006).
Faculty of all ranks in
COAS are observed
in teaching and given
tools to self-reflect
on pedagogy to
support students and
their own work.
Procedural: Faculty
need to know
how to access
support to
improve their
instruction and/or
their instructional
strategies.
Need High Effective change efforts
use feedback to
determine if/when
improvement has
happened (Clark &
Estes, 2008)
A tenured faculty is
paired with a
contingent faculty
each semester (i.e.,
fall and spring) to
give mutual feedback
and observe teaching
methods.
Metacognitive:
Faculty need to
know how to
reflect on their
student feedback
and pedagogy
and make
changes with this
reflection.
Need High Learning and motivation
are enhanced when
learners set goals,
monitor their
performance, and
evaluate their progress
toward achieving their
goals (Ambrose et al.,
20120; Meyer, 2011).
Questions are added to
student evaluations
that are approved by
the chair of each
department. A
question on
instructional strategy
is asked.
78
• Metacognitive: Questions are added to student evaluations that each department chair
approves. A question on instructional strategy is asked.
Recommendations proposed for procedural and metacognition are as follows:
• A tenured faculty should be paired with a contingent faculty each semester (i.e.,
spring and fall semester) to give mutual feedback and observe teaching methods.
• Questions for student evaluations should be specific to instructor teaching strategies.
The identified needs for the knowledge influences provide the opportunity for contingent
faculty to experience more support and self-confidence. The needs in knowledge presented in the
findings give an opportunity for brave conversations and real change at Nina University (Ali,
2017). While approaching the strategies to improve faculty experiences seeking advice,
mentorship, and strategies to teach, more social problems are bound to emerge from the findings.
In the same vein, some procedural knowledge influences may not be visible to the organization
and should be illuminated for all.
Student evaluations have been a high stress point for educators in higher education and
often are flawed in nature. Teaching evaluations often have been a source of personal praise or
grievances and have been disproportionately biased against women (Adams et al., 2022). Often,
teaching evaluations measure how a student feels about their educator as a person instead of
giving tangible feedback on how their learning could have been better impacted. Creating
questions on the student evaluation that can capture field-related questions to help instructors and
departments grow in pedagogy could change the lack of confidence by some faculty.
Motivation Recommendations
Choice, persistence, and motivation assessment included the following influences: self-
efficacy, attributions, goal orientation, and mood (Clark & Estes, 2008). Motivation can be a
useful tool to observe willingness and communication and how one shows up in their
79
organization. Establishing motivational assessments in a study can allow data to eliminate
intrinsic goals one may have and how one feels in their organization or role. A stakeholder can
see improvement and growth in an organization if they attribute their behavior to intention and
effort rather than to a fixed mindset. These findings in motivational assessment can provide
insight to culture, communication, and impacts on stakeholder groups (e.g., students) when they
examine their educators’ motivational goals.
Table 14 lists the motivation causes, priority, principle, and recommendations (Clark &
Estes, 2008). Then, a detailed discussion for each high priority cause and recommendation and
the literature supporting the recommendation are provided.
Table 14
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
motivation
influence
Asset
or
need
Priority
high or
low
Principle and
citation
Context-specific
recommendation
Self-efficacy:
Contingent
faculty need to
know the
organization’s
goal and how to
access support if
they need it.
Contingent
faculty are
confident in their
ability to
implement the
goal.
Need High Learning and
motivation are
enhanced if the
learner values the
task (Eccles,
2006).
The goal is required to be
discussed in faculty
meetings across
campus/an all-in
meeting biannually for
new and returning
faculty to ensure all
faculty know about the
organization goal and
are prepared to
implement it.
80
Assumed
motivation
influence
Asset
or
need
Priority
high or
low
Principle and
citation
Context-specific
recommendation
Self-efficacy:
Contingent
faculty must
have the self-
confidence to
teach what they
have been hired
to teach by the
university.
Asset Low Activating personal
interest through
opportunities for
choice and control
can increase
motivation
(Eccles, 2006).
Faculty are given
affirmations and
positive feedback
biannually from their
department and
COAS.
Attributions:
Contingent
faculty attribute
their students’
success to their
ability to teach
their curriculum
effectively.
Asset Low Individuals enhance
participation
when they can
attribute their
success and
failures to effort
rather than ability
(Clark & Estes,
2008; Pintrich,
2003).
Training is encouraged
for all levels of faculty
annually to grow in
student centered
pedagogy.
Goal orientation:
Contingent
faculty prioritize
self-
improvement and
goals in their
work and how
they create
equity for
students in their
classroom.
Need High Rationales that
include a
discussion of the
importance and
utility value of the
work or learning
can help learners
develop positive
values (Eccles,
2006; Pintrich,
2003)
Contingent faculty make
goals for their growth
in the department
semester to semester.
Mood: Contingent
faculty need to
feel positive
about support and
believe their
work is valued
and important.
Need High Activating personal
interest through
opportunities for
choice and control
can increase
motivation
(Eccles, 2006).
Include contingent
faculty in governance
structure to vote on
department matters.
This is not to be
separate from tenured
faculty in each
department and the
overall COAS.
81
Table 14 includes a summary of motivation influences and recommendations and lists
three needs with high priority. The high-priority causes validated in this study were as follows:
• Self-efficacy: The goal must be discussed in faculty meetings across campus and in
all-in meetings biannually for new and returning faculty to ensure all faculty know
about the organization goal and are prepared to implement it.
• Goal orientation: Contingent faculty must make goals for their growth in the
department semester to semester.
• Mood: Contingent faculty should be included in the governance structure to vote on
department matters, which should not be separate from tenured faculty in each
department and the COAS.
The identified needs for motivation influences provide the opportunity for contingent
faculty to experience more support and self-confidence. Recommendations (e.g., mood) can
influence other issues in higher education (e.g., grade inflation). According to Kezim et al.
(2005), faculty experience problems such as grade inflation and feelings of disempowerment.
The turbulent experience for contingent faculty and the weight of student evaluations can create
a realized or unrealized tendency to inflate grades, especially for 100- to 200-level courses.
Contingent faculty often teach introduction-like courses in COAS (Heriyanto et al., 2022).
When contingent faculty make their own goals in their home departments in the COAS, it
can lead to better teaching. Instead of relying on student evaluations as the sole metric of how
contingent faculty perform in their roles, more organized structures of teaching evaluations can
be put in place. Teacher tenure, observations, and access to more practice and self-reflection in
the workplace are important (Sawchuck, 2015). Providing more development for teaching
practices also can provide more opportunity for COAS administrators to oversee programs in
their college. More oversight of teaching practices is needed for administrators to practice social
82
justice leadership and ensure understanding their responsibilities not only to students but also to
their faculty (Turhan, 2010).
Organization Recommendations
Organizations can be examined through the influences of resources, policies and
procedures, cultural models, and cultural settings (Clark & Estes, 2008). Nina University’s work
culture and experiences can be explored through the change needed in the fabric of the
institutions. This study found recommendations for each of the categories explored in Table 14
were a high priority. Participation and an understanding of roles and responsibilities at the
institution can be explored through the context-specific recommendations made to better support
faculty. Organization influences can share the apparent and nonapparent experiences of culture
for each stakeholder in the organization. See Table 15.
Table 15
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
organization
influence
Asset
or
need
Priority
high or
low
Principle and citation Context-specific
recommendation
Resources:
Contingent faculty
have resources
(i.e., mentorship,
funding, and
support) to
participate in the
cultural model
with compensation
and clear roles
assigned.
Need High Effective change efforts
ensure everyone has
the resources needed
to do their job, and
that if there are
resource shortages,
then resources are
aligned with
organizational
priorities (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Ensure contingent
faculty have resources
to participate in the
cultural model with
boundaries of their
responsibilities and a
clear role.
83
Assumed
organization
influence
Asset
or
need
Priority
high or
low
Principle and citation Context-specific
recommendation
Policies and
procedures:
Contingent faculty
have a clear
understanding of
the policies at this
university. The
policies and
procedures of Nina
University align
with its mission
statement and code
of conduct.
Need High Effective organizations
ensure organizational
messages, rewards,
policies, and
procedures governing
the work of the
organization are
aligned with or
supportive of
organizational goals
and values (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Establish a
comprehensive list of
policies and
procedures all
contingent faculty
need to know prior to
teaching at Nina
University. This is
linked with resources
and contact
stakeholders for
questions and
resources. This is
shared during faculty
meetings in fall
semesters and
onboarding new
faculty.
Cultural models:
Contingent faculty
are part of an
organization that
models
mentorship,
leadership, and
empowerment in
the workplace.
Need High Effective change efforts
use feedback to
determine when/if
improvement is
happening (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Identify key faculty
leaders who will
volunteer or be paid to
mentor contingent
faculty members in
COAS.
Cultural settings:
Contingent faculty
have classroom,
research, and
career goals
supported by the
university.
Need High Effective change begins
by addressing
motivation
influences; it ensures
the group knows why
it needs to change. It
then addresses
organization barriers
and then knowledge
and skill needs (Clark
& Estes, 2008).
Contingent faculty can
share their research
goals during faculty
meetings. Tenured
faculty can provide
opportunities for
contingent faculty to
participate in their
studies.
84
Table 15 lists the organization’s causes, priority, principle, and recommendations. Then,
a detailed discussion for each high priority cause and recommendation and the literature
supporting the recommendation are provided. Table 15 presents a summary of organization
influences and recommendations and lists three needs with high priority. The high-priority
causes validated in this study were as follows:
• Resources: Ensure contingent faculty have resources to participate in the cultural
model with boundaries of their responsibilities and a clear role.
• Policies and procedures: Establish a comprehensive list of policies and procedures all
contingent faculty need to know prior to teaching at Nina University. This list should
link to resources and contact information for stakeholders for questions and resources.
This list should be shared during faculty meetings during the fall semester and during
onboarding for new faculty.
• Cultural models: Identify key faculty leaders who will volunteer or be paid to mentor
contingent faculty members in COAS.
• Cultural settings: Contingent faculty can share their research goals during faculty
meetings. Tenured faculty can provide opportunities for contingent faculty to
participate in their studies.
A strong school and organization culture requires reflection, shared values, and
intentional action (Shafer, 2018). Effective communication is a key to not only having a strong
community in the workplace but also to being effective financially (Roza & Anderson, 2019).
The culture in an organization cannot be underestimated in value. Restructuring social networks
in an organization is an effective tool to decrease the hierarchy and add innovation (Shafer,
2018). Support can be found at Nina University and other educational institutions by assessing
85
communication and introducing stakeholders to each other because they may not have a chance
to communicate with others on a daily or even semester basis.
Positivity in an organization can align people with their goals and contributions to the
overall mission (Jerald, 2021). It is important for faculty to feel that the organization wants them
to succeed and that they are important to the fabric of the institution to ensure execution of the
mission statement, which is related to how faculty show up in meetings, their student
interactions, and how they show up in the community. Valuing positivity in the workplace and
nurturing why many faculty work in education is important. Whether they are teaching remote,
face to face, or online, an educator’s work requires emotional labor (Hull, 2021).
Creating a culture of strengthened community and collaboration will help educators
become more student centered, thus benefitting students (Vescio et al., 2008). One’s positionality
teaching in higher education is both powerful and limited (Vescio et al., 2008). Collaboration
with other educators from different departments, grade levels, and backgrounds can benefit the
organization and the student learning.
Summary of KMO Recommendations
I make recommendations to improve the working conditions and experiences of support
for all faculty and students at Nina University. The stakeholders in this study (i.e., contingent
faculty) are at the epicenter but recommendations are not limited to only them. The
recommendations are born from a place of empathy and wanting the organization to improve the
assets it brings their employees while reflecting on the needs presented in the study.
The knowledge recommendations are a call to action for understanding the job and to
ensure performance reviews are more accessible to faculty at all levels. Teaching evaluations are
not enough for faculty to grow if they do not have mentorship and open communication. For this
reason, I recommend contingent faculty members be paired with tenured faculty members to give
86
mutual feedback and observe teaching methods. My motivational recommendations consider the
love of teaching many contingent faculty have and aim to give recommendations to identify
other stakeholders to help when connecting them to the overall institution.
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) Level 2 Learning evaluation type is the
measurement of the amount of knowledge one has before to after a learning experience. A
faculty member reflecting that they learned what was intended to be taught at a training
exemplifies Level 2 Learning. Level 2 establishes the extent of advancement or change in the
organization after training has been in place and received by the stakeholder (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016).
The organization recommendations are rooted in creating a stronger culture for all
stakeholders at this university. Contingent faculty need spaces in this workplace to share their
ideas and their career goals at Nina University as well as to have power in their departments. I
recommend COAS invite contingent faculty to the table just as tenured COAS faculty at Nina
University are invited.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations
Nina University has established the performance goal to increase contingent faculty
satisfaction and reports of support by 100% by the end of the Spring 2026 semester. The purpose
of this study was to conduct a gap analysis to understand how contingent faculty the experience
working conditions at Nina University using the following research questions:
1. What motivational and knowledge influences contribute to the supportive work
environment for contingent faculty at Nina University?
2. What are the organizational influences of contingent faculty satisfaction with their
employment status at Nina University?
87
By May 2024, contingent faculty at Nina University will be surveyed and interviewed to provide
data of elements of support they want and or need from tenured faculty and administrators at
Nina University.
Implementation of these recommendations is expected to increase contingent faculty
support and resources in the COAS at Nina University. The desired outcomes are higher morale
among contingent faculty, higher report of satisfaction in the workplace, a change in the term
nontenured or adjunct faculty, and implementation of a mentorship model.
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The new world model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrck, 2016) approaches training evaluation
from Level 4 (i.e., results) to Level 1. The model encourages organizations to look at the steps
backward to forward (i.e., reflect first on Level 4).
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Level 4 in Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) model evaluates results through various
quantifiable metrics such as volumes, values, percentages, and other quantifiable aspects of an
organization’s functions. Achievement, retention, and growth are examined in Level 4 of the
model. External factors affect performance, on both organizational and individual levels, which
impact the positive or negative results. Indicators, as Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick described, are
volumes, values, percentages, and quantifiable aspects. The number of complaints, turnover of
faculty, failures, ratings, and accreditations are some examples of leading indicators (Kirkpatrick
& Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Table 16 shows Level 4’s leading external and internal outcomes and their indicators.
This table also shows the metrics and methods used to measure them. Level 4 results measure the
degree to which contingent faculty at Nina University experienced support and participation in
COAS due to the training plan.
88
Table 16
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
External
/internal
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Nina University needs to
address the negative
connotations of
adjunct and
nontenured faculty and
change the term to
“contingent faculty.”
Term will be used in
communication/
advertisements of
contingent faculty.
Contingent faculty come
together and have
communication about
appropriate term. This
committee meets twice
per year. School adopts
the term in Fall 2025.
Internal Contract language will
change from adjunct
and nontenured to
contingent faculty.
Word changed from
“temporary” or
“adjunct” to contingent
in all department
communication moving
forward.
By Fall 2025, COAS and
the larger Nina
University community
will adopt the term
“contingent.”
Internal Contingent faculty will
be added to invite list
for department
meetings.
Contingent faculty must
be included in more
communication and
decision making in
each COAS
department.
By Fall 2025, contingent
faculty are included in at
least 50% of meetings
and department social
events in each COAS
department.
Internal Contingent faculty will
help define support in
their home COAS
department via a focus
group.
Tenured and
administrative faculty
will use data gained
from contingent faculty
sharing their stories to
their mentorship and
decision making in the
department.
By Fall 2025, contingent
faculty reported
experiences about
support, or lack of
support, will be presented
in the CTL. Each COAS
chair and admin will
receive data and work to
be more inclusive of
contingent faculty.
Internal Nina University needs to
evaluate their method
of evaluating
educators in COAS.
Questions will be
added and catered to
support reflection for
tenured and contingent
faculty.
Questions will be added to
student evaluations and
comments will be
viewed first by
supervisors. These will
be used to teach
educators to be more
student centered with
support from the admin
and their chairs.
Course evaluations are
adjusted to be more
inclusive of contingent
faculty growth by Fall
2025.
89
Level 3: Behavior
Critical Behaviors. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) model of evaluation shows
Level 3 (i.e., behavior) is to inform training. Behavior evaluation is the extent to which
stakeholders apply learning and change behaviors. Level 3 also examines trainees’ awareness of
their knowledge, behaviors, and skill levels in the goal. The change needs to be sustained in the
organization for Level 3 to be successful. Table 17 shows outcome, metric(s), and the method of
external and internal outcomes.
Table 17
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
Reaction: Coaching
occurs after
contingent faculty
are observed in
their teaching.
Areas of
improvement and
success are
identified.
Field notes taken by
observer.
Feedback conversation
(30 mins) between
observer and educator
Class observations (by
department chairs,
tenured faculty,
and admin in
COAS)
Once per
semester
Encouraging: Admin,
chairs, and tenured
faculty listen to
challenges of
contingent faculty
in a meeting
dedicated to
improving support
for this
population.
Field notes taken by
scribe at meeting.
Follow-up survey given
for all in attendance to
share takeaways
Written and verbal
communication.
Notes and survey
information shared
in COAS
meetings,
departments, and
in COAS
newsletter once per
semester.
Semester
Rewarding:
“Contingent
faculty spotlight”
is sent out in
COAS once per
newsletter.
Each department will
rotate in COAS. Once
per newsletter (sent
out in COAS email
list), a contingent
faculty will be
spotlighted for good
Newsletter
Written
communication
Two times per
semester
90
Critical behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
work they are doing,
teaching methods, and
student testimonies.
Rewarding: An
encouraging email
will be sent to each
contingent faculty
from department
chair after each
semester.
Email communication
Follow up discussion on
performance
encouraged.
Observing and responding
to performance via
observation field
notes/student
evaluations
Email communication
and interpersonal
communication
Once per
semester/on
e month
after
receiving
evaluation
Monitoring: Chairs
will communicate
more with
contingent faculty
members. COAS
admin will attend
meetings with each
department to meet
all faculty,
including
contingent faculty.
Chairs, admin, and
tenured faculty will
attend events and
meetings with
contingent faculty.
Meeting notes,
engagement on
email, informal
event attendance
Two times per
semester
Required Drivers. Table 17 categorizes critical behavior, metric(s), methods, and
timing. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) identified the process to create changes in a behavior
(e.g., encourage or reward behaviors) required drivers. Required drivers are the validations that
can be identified to continue the positive behavior change. Table 18 shows outcome, metric(s),
and the method of external and internal outcomes.
Organizational Support. The critical behaviors in Table 18 and the required drivers rely
on recommendations provided by the organizational level.
91
Table 18
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Critical
behavior
Method(s) Timing Critical behaviors
supported (e.g., 1, 2,
3)
Reinforcing Contingent faculty are mentored and
coached on a consistent basis.
Three times
per semester
1, 2, 3
Reinforcing Refreshers are added for each faculty
member of all ranks to ensure
quality of teaching and support.
Annually
(spring
semester)
1, 2
Encouraging Mentoring occurs between tenured
and contingent faculty.
Every other
fall and
spring
semester
1, 2, 3
Encouraging Mentoring occurs between contingent
and contingent faculty.
One per
semester
1, 2, 3
Rewarding Recognition for teaching evaluations
is present for all faculty levels in
COAS departments.
Once per
semester
1, 2, 3
Monitoring Observation occurs in each
department with all faculty
observed teaching by chair and
one peer.
Once per year 1, 2, 3
Monitoring Survey is sent to all faculty in each
department evaluated by chair and
COAS admin about support or
lack of support.
End of fall
semester
End of spring
semester
1, 2, 3
92
Level 2: Learning
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) defined learning as “to what degree participants
acquire the intended knowledge, skills, and attributes based on their participation in the learning
event” (p. 4). Learning was created in this model to close the gap that can occur between
learning and enacting a behavior. Attitude, confidence, and commitment are terms of Level 2
learning in Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) work, which connects to the support, or lack of
support, contingent faculty experienced in the COAS at Nina University.
Learning Goals. Upon completion of the recommended solutions, contingent faculty
may report more feelings of support at Nina University. The following listed learning goals were
developed based on the needs validated in Chapter 4:
• Explain the procedures and policies at Nina University with confidence.
• Define and understand support for all stakeholders and identify one’s role in the
solution.
• Use the term “contingent” to describe faculty who have an experience outside tenure
at Nina University.
• Self-reflect on teaching pedagogy and student evaluations.
• Participate and reflect on mentorship in the COAS.
Program. The training program will be implemented in response to the stakeholder’s
goal to have 100% of contingent faculty at Nina University report feeling supported in their roles
at the organization. Training will include multiple stakeholders (e.g., tenured and contingent
faculty) to bring diverse perspectives to the table. This evaluation and the recommended
implementation will focus on defining support, giving structure to mentorship opportunities, and
bringing forth agency for contingent faculty to share their stories in the COAS.
93
This training will analyze the support and mentorship provided to contingent faculty in
the COAS at Nina University. This training will be individualized to each department (e.g.,
history, anthropology, and writing) to ensure its applicability to the contingent faculty’s fields.
Evaluation of the Components of Learning. Evaluating contingent faculty members’
learning for declarative and procedural knowledge is vital and a foundation of Nina University. It
is important to also account for contingent faculty members’ confidence, efficacy, and
attributions. Table 19 lists the evaluation methods and timing for these components of learning.
94
Table 19
Evaluation of Learning Components for Program
Level 1: Reaction
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) Level 1 is reaction. This part of the model examines
participant stakeholders’ reactions to the training. Their level of satisfaction, dissatisfaction, and
Learning Method(s) or activity(ies) Timing
Declarative
knowledge:
“I know it.”
CTL/COAS will create training for all faculty at Nina
University. Topics will include Supporting Contingent
Faculty, Creating an Inclusive Department, and the
Importance of Mentorship in the COAS (three trainings
pertaining to this)
Fall 2025;
annually
During and
after
Explain need to change terms related to nontenure to
“contingent”
During and
after
Procedural
skills: “I can
do it right
now.”
Analyze contingent faculty teaching methods and identify
areas of growth and improvement.
During and
after
Self-reflect on support behavior about contingent faculty. During and
after
Communicate more effectively and frequently with all in
department/COAS.
During and
after
Attitude: “I
believe this
is
worthwhile.”
All faculty will be encouraged to use the term “contingent”
instead of “adjunct” or “nontenured.”
After
training
Contingent faculty are mentored by tenured/admin faculty
and meet at least once per semester, observe each other’s
teaching, and have a connection on campus.
Fall of 2025
Confidence: “I
think I can
do it on the
job.”
Discussion as the entire COAS college. After training
Discussions as individual departments (e.g., history, social
science, writing) to assess how each stakeholder perceives
the culture.
After
training
Commitment:
“I will do it
on the job.”
Department-specific goal setting. After
training;
biannually
Observations by tenure and chair. Chair will complete 50%
of observations, and a rotating team of tenured faculty in
each department will complete 50% of observations.
During and
after
Contingent faculty mentorship/community created that meets
in the CTL. Meetings will have topics related to COAS for
groups of contingent faculty to communicate through (e.g.,
legislation, department news, informal bonding)
After
training; at
least 2
semesters
95
overall buy in is captured at this stage in the implementation. Assessing participants’ reactions
can be an immediate action. An example of this action would be a survey after a training or
communication. Table 20 shows the components to measure reactions to the program, including
the method; tools; and timing for engagement, relevance, and customer satisfaction.
Table 20
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Reactions Method(s) or tool(s) Timing
Engagement Survey to contingent faculty Once per semester (biannual)
Focus groups Once per year in spring semester
(annually)
Administrative faculty will attend
and participate at contingent
faculty meetings and/or CTL
events.
Quarterly
Relevance Faculty in each COAS department
have discussions with chairs and
administrative faculty.
Biannual (once per fall, once per
spring)
Check-ins with contingent faculty at
Nina University about support
they need.
Monthly
Customer
satisfaction
Survey to contingent faculty Biannual (once per fall, once per
spring)
Survey to all faculty of COAS Biannual (once per fall, once per
spring)
Question added to self-evaluation Biannual (once per fall, once per
spring)
96
Data Analysis and Reporting
Contingent faculty in the COAS at Nina University often do not feel part of the campus
and overall organization. Therefore, presenting the findings and recommendations could include
the voices of COAS contingent faculty. I recommend this study’s findings be presented to the
COAS administration. Once the findings are reviewed, the administration will present to all
faculty to discuss next steps.
The recommended metrics for implementation aim to gain diverse voices in the faculty.
A survey, as discussed in Table 19, could be used to gain stories and perspectives of contingent
faculty in an accessible way. The survey would have a several-week window in which
participants could answer questions without identifiers for faculty comfort, and individuals could
opt out if they do not choose to participate. In this study, focus groups were selected as the
method and tool for implementation based on the findings in Chapter 4. Both the survey and the
interviews from this study revealed contingent faculty do not always feel part of the
organizational culture. Additional focus groups are needed to seek further solutions from
contingent faculty perspectives and to introduce individuals to each other across campus.
Monthly check-ins could be the beginning of the process. Holding focus groups once per
year in the spring semester, as described in Table 20, could be implemented so faculty wanting to
participate can plan. Next, the survey for contingent faculty, as discussed in Table 20, could be
administered, and data could be compared in both the fall and spring semesters. After these
initial steps are in motion, the faculty could identify the next logical recommended method and
tool to move forward.
Following these initial measures, Nina University could be provided an opportunity to
analyze the data collected from these procedures. At that point, the university could evaluate,
with their faculty, what other measures should be taken to collect more data on this topic.
97
Stakeholders, such as tenured faculty, administrative faculty, and contingent faculty, could work
together to identify the order of the next measures.
Summary of the Implementation and Evaluation
I used Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2021) new world model to plan, implement, and
evaluate my recommendations for Nina University. The goal was to optimize the achievement of
contingent faculty and the overall goals of supporting students at Nina University. The new
world model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2021) has a purposeful approach to training evaluation.
The leading indicators to influence the problem to be evaluated and hopefully solved were
established when creating the survey and interview protocols for this study.
The new world model has four levels (i.e., reactions, learning, behavior, and results;
Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The model encourages organizations to look at the steps from
backward to forward (i.e., reflect on Level 4). Each level was considered when I created
recommendations for the organization to improve support experiences for contingent faculty.
Implementation of this evaluation may take participation from tenured faculty, administrative
faculty, and contingent faculty.
Recommendations presented in this chapter include contingent faculty making goals for
their growth in the department from semester to semester (i.e., goal orientation). The
recommendations invite collaboration and communication, such as the procedural
recommendation of “a tenured faculty member is paired with a contingent faculty member each
semester to give mutual feedback and observe teaching methods.” The recommendations have
themes of meeting and communicating in CTL, as discussed in the findings in Chapter 4. This
space will be used for further communication among multiple stakeholders, such as tenured
faculty and contingent faculty, in mutually beneficial trainings and meetings.
98
The goal of Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2021) new world model is to share the
possibilities found and the truth of participants’ experiences. There will not always be an open
door for necessary change (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2021). An example of this may be an
assertion of hierarchy or norms in higher education. The goal of this model is to share data, build
trust, and create recommendations born from a holistic view of the organization’s potential. An
example of this can be seen in supporting contingent faculty to persist in thinking of what higher
education could be, not what it always has been for contingent faculty.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations of this research included a short timeframe for collecting data, a limited
number of possible respondents, and the study being conducted at one university. The sample of
faculty from the COAS at one university provided fruitful data; however, the study could have
been larger if I had studied a different university or examined more than one university. It is
possible a limitation in this study is that individuals, despite the survey being anonymous, were
afraid to answer truthfully in their place of work. My positionality as a contingent faculty
member may have been a limitation for individuals to want to participate in the study or a
motivation to alter their responses to the survey or interview.
Delimitations of this research included the survey closing after 2 weeks and having a
deadline for accepting requests for interviews. This study only included interviews of contingent
faculty members and excluded tenured faculty members from the survey and interviews. Another
delimitation of this study was examining only Nina University’s COAS and no other colleges at
the university, such as the college of business.
Recommendations for Future Research
Future research is needed to improve contingent faculty experiences at the university
level. This research had a time limit that may have prohibited more respondents from
99
participating. I encourage a longitudinal study with at least five universities who have
implemented innovative actions to improve the satisfaction of contingent faculty. Other
stakeholders, such as tenured faculty and administrative faculty, could be part of creating focus
groups and reaching more contingent faculty to participate in this work. The limitation of my
identity as a contingent faculty may have contributed the small participant sample size.
Administrators, tenured faculty, and chairs could prioritize the experiences of support, or lack of
support, for contingent faculty.
I recommend further research in various colleges at Nina University (e.g., College of
Engineering and Health Services). Comparing survey results for contingent faculty across the
Nina University campus could lead to important findings and further recommendations.
Conclusion
The mission of Nina University is to provide an innovative, transformative, and equitable
educational environment that prepares students for success and advances this state in the West
and in the world. Contingent faculty at Nina University are part of the essential fabric of the
overall organization. Nina University has over 382 contingent faculty in the COAS alone. This
evaluation study was a contribution to the existing literature discussed in Chapter 2, which has
urged higher education to value contingent faculty and their experiences with support.
There is endless work to be done in support of all stakeholders throughout all facets of
education. This study examined an example of public higher education and experiences of
support for faculty without tenure at one university. Future research could examine other
universities, different stakeholder groups, and other academic colleges at Nina University.
Students can only benefit from having educators, tenured or otherwise, who are supported at
their place of work.
100
References
Adams, S., Bekker, S., Fan, Y., Gordon, T., Shepherd, L. J., Slavich, E., & Waters, D. (2022).
Gender bias in student evaluations of teaching: ‘Punish[ing] those who fail to do their
gender right.’ Higher Education, 83(4), 787–807. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-021-
00704-9
Ali, D. (2017). NASPA policy and practice series: Safe spaces and brave spaces: Historical
context and recommendations for student affairs professionals. NASPA – Student Affairs
Administrators in Higher Education.
https://www.naspa.org/files/dmfile/Policy_and_Practice_No_2_Safe_Brave_Spaces.pdf
Bohonos, J. W., & Sisco, S. (2021). Advocating for social justice, equity, and inclusion in the
workplace: An agenda for anti‐racist learning organizations. New Directions for Adult &
Continuing Education, 2021(170), 89–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.20428
Brustein, W. I. (2007). The global campus: Challenges and opportunities for higher education in
North America. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4), 382–391.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315307303918
Cabrera, N. L. (2014). Exposing whiteness in higher education: White male college students
minimizing racism, claiming victimization, and recreating white supremacy. Race
Ethnicity and Education, 17(1), 30–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2012.725040
Cabrera, N. L. (2020). “Never forget” the history of racial oppression: Whiteness, White
immunity, and educational debt in higher education. Change, 52(2), 37–40.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2020.1732774
Clark, R., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age.
101
Cole, D., & Ahmadi, S. (2010). Reconsidering campus diversity: An examination of Muslim
students’ experiences. Journal of Higher Education, 81(2), 121–139.
https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.0.0089
Denaro, K., Dennin, K., Dennin, M., & Sato, B. (2022). Identifying systemic inequity in higher
education and opportunities for improvement. PLoS ONE, 17(4), 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264059
Elliott, K. O., & Blair, E. E. (2020). Measured vulnerability: Teaching for social justice in
unsettling times. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 33(2), 229–
239. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2019.1681550
Erstad, B. L., Romero, A., Miller, R., Liaupsin, C., Thienhaus, O. J., Wagner, P., Schlager, E., &
Brazeau, G. A. (2021). Equity for and inclusion of non-tenure-track pharmacy faculty
within academia. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 85(3), 164–168.
https://doi.org/10.5688/ajpe8428
Estes, R. (2019). 3 ways evaluating your classified staff can make a positive difference in your
school (and where to start). Frontline Education.
https://www.frontlineeducation.com/blog/evaluating-classified-staff/
Fagan, W. R., Springer, D., Ambrosino, B., & White, B. (2006). The support of adjunct faculty:
An academic imperative. Social Work Education, 25(1), 39–51.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02615470500477870
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
102
Gelman, C., Gandel, J., & Bausman, M. (2022). A multi-faceted, adjunct-centered initiative to
support part-time faculty. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 42(1), 82–99.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2021.2013000
Goodman, J. (2020). Afterword: histories of women’s higher education, time, and temporalities.
Paedagogica Historica, 56(6), 847–856. https://doi.org/10.1080/00309230.2020.1822891
Harper, S. R. (2012). Race without racism: How higher education researchers minimize racist
institutional norms. The Review of Higher Education, 36(1), 9–29.
https://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2012.0047
Hattie, J. (2015). What works best in education: The politics of collaborative expertise. Pearson.
Hearn, J. C., & Burns, R. (2021). Contingent faculty employment and financial stress in public
universities. Journal of Higher Education, 92(3), 331–362.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2020.1851570
Heriyanto, Christiani, L., & Rukiyah. (2022). Lecturers’ information literacy experience in
remote teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS ONE, 17(3), 1–12.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259954
Hull, J. (2021, February). An open letter: From an adjunct faculty member to full-time faculty.
Academic Senate for California Community Colleges.
https://www.asccc.org/content/open-letter-adjunct-faculty-member-full-time-faculty
Jensen, P., & Ratcliffe, K. (2020, June). Redefining school culture with listening. School
Administrator. https://my.aasa.org/AASA/Resources/SAMag/2020/Jun20/Jensen-
Ratcliffe.aspx
Jerald, C. (2021). School culture: The hidden curriculum. Reading Rockets.
https://www.readingrockets.org/article/school-culture-hidden-curriculum
103
Kezim, B., Pariseau, S. E., & Quinn, F. (2005). Is grade inflation related to faculty status?
Journal of Education for Business, 80(6), 358–363.
https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.80.6.358-364
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
ATD Press.
Kraft, M. A., & Falken, G. T. (2020). Why school climate matters for teachers and students.
Shanker Institute. https://www.shankerinstitute.org/blog/why-school-climate-matters-
teachers-and-students
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002) A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41, 212–218. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Langen, J. (2011). Evaluation of adjunct faculty in higher education institutions. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(2), 185–196.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903221501
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Nica, E. (2018). Has the shift to overworked and underpaid adjunct faculty helped education
outcomes? Educational Philosophy and Theory, 50(3), 213–216.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2017.1300026
Miller, R. A., & Struve, L. E. (2020). “Heavy lifters of the university”: Non-tenure track faculty
teaching required diversity courses. Innovative Higher Education, 45(6), 437–455.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-020-09517-7
Pink, D. (2011). Drive. Penguin Random House.
104
Premeaux, S. (2012). Tenure perspectives: Tenured versus nontenured tenure-track faculty.
Journal of Education for Business, 87(2), 121–127.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2011.577111
Rhoades, G., & Slaughter, S. (2004). Academic capitalism in the new economy: Challenges and
choices. American Academic, 1(1), 37–59.
Robinson, S. B., & Firth Leonard, K. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. SAGE
Publications.
Roza, M., & Anderson, L. (2019, May 21). Understanding school finance is one thing. Being
effective in communicating about it is another skill entirely. Learning Policy Institute.
https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/blog/understanding-school-finance-one-thing-being-
effective-communicating-about-it-another-skill
Sawchuk, S. (2015, September 3). Teacher evaluation: An issue overview. EducationWeek.
https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/teacher-evaluation-an-issue-overview/2015/09
Schwartz, J. M. (2014). Resisting the exploitation of contingent faculty labor in the neoliberal
university: The challenge of building solidarity between tenured and contingent faculty.
New Political Science, 36(4), 504–522. https://doi.org/10.1080/07393148.2014.954803
Shafer, L. (2018). Building a strong school culture. Harvard Graduate School of Education.
https://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/uk/18/09/building-strong-school-culture
Schein, E. (2010). Chapter 14. How leaders embed and transmit culture. In Organizational
culture and Leadership (4th ed., pp. 235–258). Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Stein, S. (2018). Confronting the racial-colonial foundations of US higher education. Journal for
the Study of Postsecondary and Tertiary Education, 3, 77–98.
https://www.jspte.org/Volume3/JSPTEv3p077-098Stein4732.pdf
105
Turhan, M. (2010). Social justice leadership: Implications for roles and responsibilities of school
administrators. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 9, 1357–1361.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.334
Turner, E. O. (2020). Suddenly diverse: How school districts manage race and inequality.
University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/9780226675534-005
Vescio, V., Ross, A., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional
learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 24(1), 80–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.01.004
Weijden, I., Belder, R., Arensbergen, P., & Besselaar, P. (2015). How do young tenured
professors benefit from a mentor? Effects on management, motivation, and performance.
Higher Education, 69(2), 275–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9774-5
Wilson-Strydom, M. (2015). University access and theories of social justice: contributions of the
capabilities approach. Higher Education, 69(1), 143–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-
014-9766-5
106
Appendix A: Survey Protocol
The survey consisted of the following statements:
1. I, as a contingent faculty member, feel that I have a teaching pedagogy that is
grounded in accurate concepts and serves my students. (K)
2. I, as a contingent faculty member, know how to seek advice, mentorship, and
resources to best instruct my courses. (K)
3. I, as a contingent faculty member, have the tools and understanding to reflect on
student feedback and implement change to my pedagogy when needed. (K)
4. I feel confident in my ability as a contingent faculty member to implement goals of
the organization? (M)
5. I attribute my students’ success to my ability to teach curriculum in a student-
centered pedagogical approach. (M)
6. As a contingent faculty member, I have goals about self-improvement, growth, and
my career at Nina University. (M)
7. I feel supported on a scale of 1–5 as a non-faculty member at Nina University. (M)
8. On a scale of 1–5, I feel that I have access to adequate resources (i.e., mentorship,
funding, and support) to participate in the cultural model with compensation and clear
roles assigned. (O)
9. I have a clear understanding of policies and procedures at Nina University. (O)
10. I feel empowerment in the workplace on a scale of 1–5. (O)
11. As a contingent faculty member, I feel a part of an organization that models
leadership and mentorship in the workplace. (O)
12. As a contingent faculty member, I feel that my career goals (i.e., research, teaching,
and individual goals) are supported by the university. (O)
107
Appendix B: Interview Protocol
Thank you for taking time and consideration to participate in this study. I look forward to
listening to your responses to the questions developed for this study. Per our communication to
set up this interview, this should take about 60 minutes if you use the whole time. Does this still
work for you? (Yes—proceed; No—ask to reschedule or what will work)
I would like to share a few details about me (the researcher and interviewer) to help set
the stage of why I am conducting this interview and research. For one, at the beginning of my
career I was in a similar position of teaching in graduate school. I come to this research with
curiosity and hoping to bring your voice to solve problems facing graduate students, if any.
Based on my own experience, I bring empathy and excitement to hear your perspective.
Before we begin, I would like to refresh your memory about the study and purpose. This
study aims to understand the potential lack of support, or existing support for those who teach as
contingent faculty at Nina University. This study seeks your experience and voice to understand
support or lack of support. There are no right or wrong answers, just your own truth and story.
I have with me a copy of IRB protocols and a summary of the study. If you have any
questions, my contact information is available on the resource given to you. You have the right
to ask any clarifying questions, stop the interview, and communicate after the interview. Do I
have your consent to record your answers (for transcription and coding purposes)? (wait for an
answer and give consent). Fantastic—let’s begin. Setting the stage.
Thank you for your time and thoughtful answers to the questions providing data for this
study. I want to remind you of the protocols we discussed earlier in the interview. I am here to
support you, answer your questions post interview, and to represent your answers in an ethical
way. I appreciate you taking time out of your day to share your perspective and to contribute to
this body of research.
108
Appendix C: Interview Question List
The following questions were asked:
1. In what ways do your courses and teaching practices best serve your students? (K)
2. What is the process like for you to seek help and resources to ensure your teaching
and research practices are serving yourself and your students? (K)
3. How do you reflect on teaching evaluations and ensure your pedagogy adequately
reflects student voice? (K)
4. Do you reflect on your teaching to adapt pedagogy to meet the needs of your
students? (K)
5. What tools has your organization provided you to have confidence in your ability to
teach effectively for students? (M)
6. How do you measure your ability to teach curriculum in a student-centered
pedagogical approach? (M)
7. In what ways do your own goals in your role and professionalism at Nina University
influence other stakeholders and goals at the organization? (M)
8. How do you feel about the support you receive as a contingent faculty member at
Nina University? (M)
9. How do/don’t you have access to resources (i.e., mentorship, funding, and support) to
participate in the cultural model with compensation and clear roles assigned. (O)
10. How have you been prepared to fulfill procedures and practices at Nina University to
serve the overall mission statement? (O)
11. How does your organization model leadership and mentorship in the workplace If
not, how do you see this lacking? (O)
12. How does your organization support your career goals that are supported by the
university (i.e., Teaching, research, professional development)? (O)
109
Appendix D: Recruitment Email
Hello and thank you for your time.
You are receiving this email because you have been identified by your chair in Nina
University’s COAS as a contingent faculty member. This study aims to understand the potential
lack of support, or existing support for those who teach as contingent faculty at Nina University.
This study seeks your experience and voice to understand support or lack of support. There are
no right or wrong answers, just your own truth and story.
All your information and survey answers will remain anonymous. The survey, linked at
the bottom of this email, contains the Survey Protocol and Information Sheet about the study.
If you are interested in being contact for a follow up interview, please email the
researcher, Julia Broderick, at xxxxx@boisestate.edu. Upon contact, the researcher will set up a
60-minute zoom session that will be recorded upon your consent and coded with social scientific
methods. Your answers and name will be anonymous in the survey and interview.
110
Appendix E: Consent Form
You are invited to participate in a research study. Research studies include only people
who voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this study. You
should ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to conduct a gap analysis to understand the experience of
contingent faculty satisfaction at Nina University. Uncovering data to examine work conditions
and implementing a plan to fill in the gaps to ensure an improved, if need be, culture for those
who teach in contingent track positions. The analysis will go into the implementation of change
with openness to allow the data to illuminate the experience of the participants.
Participant Involvement
If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to complete a survey and have an
option to do a follow up interview if you reach out to the researcher. The survey can be done
over a 2-week period and the interview can be scheduled anytime in that 2-week period. If you
reach out to the principal investigator (contact below) you will be able to schedule a 60-minute
Zoom interview.
Confidentiality
There will be no identifiable information obtained in connection with this study. Your
name, address or other identifiable information will not be collected. The survey will be
anonymous, and the interview will be coded “Participant A” or another letter to protect your
identity.
Required Language
The members of the research team, the funding agency, and the University of Southern
California’s Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP
111
reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
Investigator Contact Information
The Principal Investigator is Julia Broderick, xxxxx@usc.edu, (XXX) XXX–XXXX. The
Faculty Advisor is Darline Robles, PhD, xxxxx@rossier.usc.edu, (XXX) XXX–XXXX
IRB Contact Information
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301,
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821–5272 or upirb@usc.edu.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
Using the gap analysis evaluation model framework (Clark & Estes, 2008), this study examined the support, or lack of support, experienced by contingent faculty at Nina University. The purpose of this study was to conduct a gap analysis to understand the experience of contingent faculty satisfaction at Nina University. The goal was to uncover data to examine work conditions and implement a plan to fill in the gaps to ensure an improved, if need be, culture for those who teach in contingent track positions. Mixed methods were used to collect survey data from 74 participants and interview data for 10 participants to share their experiences with support or lack of support as contingent faculty in Nina University’s College of Arts and Sciences. Findings show contingent faculty need support, mentorship, and resources. Based on the findings, solutions grounded in related research literature are offered to address these barriers. This study shows how contingent faculty, along with other stakeholders, can be better supported and more involved in this organization. The gap analysis framework provides an opportunity to address support issues and to evaluate potential solutions.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
An evaluation of the effective engagement of English-language students’ parents in UTK-8th grade schools
PDF
Alternative education supporting students in meeting high school graduation requirements
PDF
Augmentation in science curriculum towards more equitable representation: an innovation study
PDF
Examining the faculty implementation of intermediate algebra for statistics: An evaluation study
PDF
The implementation of response to intervention: an adapted gap analysis
PDF
Job placement outcomes for graduates of a southwestern university school of business: an evaluation study
PDF
An analysis of influences to faculty retention at a Philippine college
PDF
Supporting faculty in preparing entrepreneurship: an exploration in the context of active learning
PDF
Critical hope for culturally responsive education: an improvement study
PDF
Retaining special education staff in a rural consortium setting: an evaluation study
PDF
U.S. Navy SEALs resilience needs assessment: an innovation study
PDF
Underrepresentation of African American faculty in higher education: an improvement model dissertation
PDF
Improving faculty participation in student conduct hearing boards: a gap analysis
PDF
Teachers assumptions on the importance of executive function: a gap analysis evaluation study
PDF
Improving student achievement at a restructured high school academy of health sciences using an innovation gap analysis approach
PDF
The impact of faculty interactions on online student sense of belonging: an evaluation study
PDF
Preventative burnout measures for RAs on college campuses: an innovation study
PDF
Establishing a systematic evaluation of an academic nursing program using a gap analysis framework
PDF
Critical hope for culturally responsive education: an improvement study
PDF
Collaborative instructional practice for student achievement: an evaluation study
Asset Metadata
Creator
Broderick, Julia Roma
(author)
Core Title
Supporting contingent faculty at Nina University: an evaluation study
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Educational Leadership (On Line)
Degree Conferral Date
2023-08
Publication Date
07/25/2023
Defense Date
05/04/2023
Publisher
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
contingent faculty,gap analysis,Higher education,OAI-PMH Harvest,students,support
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Robles, Darline (
committee chair
), Green, Alan (
committee member
), Kellar, Frances (
committee member
)
Creator Email
jrbroder@usc.edu,juliabroderick@boisestate.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113289511
Unique identifier
UC113289511
Identifier
etd-BroderickJ-12146.pdf (filename)
Legacy Identifier
etd-BroderickJ-12146
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Broderick, Julia Roma
Internet Media Type
application/pdf
Type
texts
Source
20230726-usctheses-batch-1074
(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, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu
Tags
contingent faculty
gap analysis
support