University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Chameleons and Kungas: The Perceptions and Experiences of Military Veteran Faculty
Members in Their Transitions to Academic Service
By
Jason Todd Harris
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
December 2023

© Copyright by Jason Todd Harris 2023
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Jason Todd Harris certifies the approval of this dissertation
Anthony Maddox
Marc Pritchard
Monique Datta, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023

iv
Abstract
Despite copious research discussing student veterans, minimal literature addresses military
veteran faculty members. To address the gap, this study used qualitative interviews to describe
the perceptions and experiences of military veterans (N = 12) who successfully transitioned into
faculty roles within U.S. postsecondary institutions. A comprehensive review of the literature
surrounding intergroup contact theory (Allport, 1979), second-career academics’ support
structures, and intergroup contact opportunities between military veterans and academia
combined with the data to develop a conceptual framework. This conceptual framework
illustrates opportunities for pre-transition contact, identifies paths and support structures used by
military veterans to transition to academia, and describes how military veteran faculty members
engaged in contact with colleagues, students, and student veterans. From the lived experiences of
the sample emerged six themes: multiple pathways to the professoriate, typicality in their
transition, cultural chameleons and kungas, bridges between dialectical tensions, doing well
while doing good, and the contextual applicability of intergroup contact theory. This study
details four recommendations for praxis centered on increasing military veteran faculty member
visibility, integrating into academic committees, educating hiring committees, and encouraging
veterans to transition to academia. Lastly, the study concludes with three recommendations for
further research focused on identifying transition barriers, investigating the effects of intergroup
contact within academic communities, and expanding this study to additional genders, races, and
postsecondary institutions.
Keywords: academia, faculty, intergroup contact theory, military veterans, postsecondary
education, prejudice, salience, second-career academics, student veterans

v
Dedication
To my wife, this effort would have neither started nor ended without your unwavering support
and gracious patience. Thank you for bearing with the long nights, lonely weekends, and divided
concentration over almost three years and definitely three duty stations. I love you and am
forever indebted.
To my daughter, who watched papa come home from work each day only to disappear into his
office each night, your smile and laughter made every page possible. Thank you for your
boundless and elevating joy each and every day. I love you.
To Psycho; you were right.
To those who broke and killed, and now want to build and nurture; you can.

vi
Acknowledgements
This was never a journey I saw for myself, so my acknowledgements must begin with the
one who put me on this path. Dr. Alana Nicastro, thank you for your advice, support, and
guidance through this process. Your encouraging texts and perfectly timed inquiries inspired me
to dig for deeper meaning in my work, and I will carry your mantra with me until the end.
To my incredibly patient dissertation chair Dr. Monique Datta, and my committee
members Dr. Anthony Maddox and Dr. Marc Pritchard, thank you. Dr. Maddox, your insightful
questions and challenges during the process opened me to new possibilities. Dr. Pritchard, your
pragmatic wisdom and experience was beyond helpful in balancing my academic goals with my
military responsibilities. Dr. Datta, “Shredder,” your resilience after seeing my first draft of
Chapter 1 is nothing short of miraculous. I am living proof of Hemmingway’s adage regarding
the quality of first drafts! Thank you for your mentorship and friendship throughout this process.
To my commanding officers, Colonel Scott Gehris, Captain Jeff McGrady, and Colonel
James Derrick, thank you for affording me the time to focus on my studies and the trust to
implement what I learned. To Dr. Karyn Suggs and Dr. Yvette Rose, thank you for the continued
pushes, cheerleading, and accountability check-ins. To Dr. BP McCoy, thank you for pointing
me towards Dr. White’s dissertation playbook, it was invaluable.
To Dr. Greg Daddis and Dr. Monica Casper, I am especially grateful for the insight into
your institutions. Those early conversations sparked the initial curiosity to examine this
dissertation topic. To Dr. Mariana Grohowski, thank you pulling back the curtain on the world of
veteran studies and for so graciously providing the manuscript to your unpublished book.

vii
To Cohort 20, thank you sharing your experiences and illuminating the endless
possibilities outside of my small sphere. I have truly grown as a person through our interactions
and friendships. I am forever in your corners as you complete this and other adventures; NDLB!
Lastly, to the soon-to-be Dr. Sam Presley. Your unique combination of discourse, gentle
encouragement, and violent kicks-to-the-pants was vital in helping me fly out of the dissertation
equivalent of vortex ring state. I hope one day to return the favor.

viii
Author Note
The University of Southern California (USC) Institutional Review Board (IRB) (Study
ID: UP-23-00065) registered the study. There was no conflict of interest to disclose. Address any
correspondence concerning this study to the author at jasontha@usc.edu.

ix
Table of Contents
Abstract...........................................................................................................................................iv
Dedication........................................................................................................................................v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................vi
List of Tables................................................................................................................................ xii
List of Figures.............................................................................................................................. xiii
List of Abbreviations....................................................................................................................xiv
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study ...................................................................................................1
Background of the Problem.................................................................................................2
Statement of the Problem ....................................................................................................3
Purpose of the Study............................................................................................................4
Context of the Study............................................................................................................5
Significance of the Study.....................................................................................................5
Definition of Terms.............................................................................................................6
Organization of the Study....................................................................................................9
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature ..............................................................................................10
Intergroup Contact Theory ................................................................................................10
Pre-Transition Opportunities for Contact..........................................................................34
Making the Transition to Teaching ...................................................................................46
The Ripple Effects of Contact ...........................................................................................51
A Conceptual Framework for Military Veteran Faculty Members...................................55
Summary............................................................................................................................58
Chapter 3: Methodology................................................................................................................60
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions..................................................................60
Sample and Population ......................................................................................................60

x
Instrumentation..................................................................................................................62
Data Collection..................................................................................................................63
Data Analysis.....................................................................................................................65
Credibility and Trustworthiness........................................................................................65
The Researcher..................................................................................................................67
Ethics.................................................................................................................................67
Chapter 4: Findings .......................................................................................................................69
A Review of the Study’s Purpose......................................................................................69
Participants........................................................................................................................69
Research Question 1: Findings..........................................................................................72
Research Question 1: Discussion ......................................................................................91
Research Question 2: Findings..........................................................................................92
Research Question 2: Discussion ....................................................................................103
A Foundational Theme: The Ghost of Gordon Allport...................................................105
A Refined Conceptual Framework for Military Veteran Faculty Members ...................112
Summary..........................................................................................................................114
Chapter 5: Discussion..................................................................................................................115
Summary of Findings......................................................................................................115
Recommendations for Practice........................................................................................116
Limitation and Delimitations...........................................................................................122
Recommendations for Research ......................................................................................123
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................125
References ...................................................................................................................................127
Appendix A: Survey Protocol .....................................................................................................150
Appendix B: Interview Protocol..................................................................................................154

xi
Appendix C: A Priori Code Frequencies ......................................................................................158
Appendix D: Posteriori Code Frequencies..................................................................................159
Appendix E: Description of Themes...........................................................................................160
Appendix F: A Priori and Posteriori Codebook (Alphabetical Order)........................................161

xii
List of Tables
Table 1: Summary of Basic Carnegie Classification Descriptions............................................61
Table 2: Participant Demographics ...........................................................................................70
Table 3: Institutional Demographics .........................................................................................71
Table 4: Opportunities for Contact with Academia...................................................................77
Table B1: Interview Questions...................................................................................................155

xiii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Pettigrew’s Reformulated Contact Theory ..................................................................12
Figure 2: Depiction of Intergroup Contact Theory Primary Transfer.........................................18
Figure 3: Depiction of Intergroup Contact Theory Secondary Transfer.....................................20
Figure 4: Depiction of Salience Upon Intergroup Contact Theory Secondary Transfer.............22
Figure 5: Pettigrew’s Selection Processes (Modified)................................................................45
Figure 6: Relationships Within U.S. Institutions of Higher Education.......................................54
Figure 7: Initial Conceptual Framework.....................................................................................56
Figure 8: A Vicious Cycle of Inhibited Salience.......................................................................111
Figure 9: A Refined Conceptual Framework for Military Veteran Faculty Members..............113

xiv
List of Abbreviations
AFIT Air Force Institute of Technology
AFROTC Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps
AWC Army War College
CNA Center for Naval Analyses
DoD Department of Defense
IPEDS Integrated post-secondary education data system
IRB Institutional review board
MCU Marine Corps University
MEI Military education institution
NCES National Center for Education Statistics
NDU National Defense University
NETC Naval Education and Training Command
NIU National Intelligence University
NPS Naval Postgraduate School
PME Professional military education
PTSD Post-traumatic stress disorder
ROTC Reserve Officer Training Corps
USA United States Army
USAF United States Air Force
USC University of Southern California
USCG United States Coast Guard

xv
USCGA United States Coast Guard Academy
USAFA United States Air Force Academy
USMA United States Military Academy
USMC United States Marine Corps
USN United States Navy
USNA United States Naval Academy
USNWC United States Naval War College
USSF United States Space Force

1
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study
University students face a variety of challenges in their pursuit of higher education.
Previous research has identified the impacts of students’ perceptions of faculty (Parker &
Trolian, 2020), campus diversity (Llamas et al., 2021), and cognitive and motivational risk
factors (C.W. Johnson et al., 2016; R. Johnson et al., 2021) on academic progression. Additional
research highlighted the positive impacts (Fairlie et al., 2014; Llamas et al., 2021; Pascarella,
2006) or negative impacts (Perry et al., 2022) of increased faculty diversity on student success.
Closely related to the issue of faculty diversity is the literature addressing student-faculty
interactions (Kim & Lundberg, 2022; Pascarella, 1980). These studies centered their discussions
on the student subsets of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, and social class.
For the subset of students who are military veterans, mental health and cultural adaptation
challenges are the primary foci of existing research. Whether addressing post-traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD) related challenges (Albright & Bryan, 2018; Gonzalez & Elliot, 2016; Kintzle
et al., 2018; Rudd et al., 2011), stereotypes (Motl et al., 2022; Osborne, 2014), belonging (Barry
et al., 2021; Norman et al., 2015), or cultural transition (Cate & Albright, 2015; Hitt et al., 2015;
Lim et al., 2018; Norman et al., 2015), recommended solutions usually focus on how university
staffs or civilian faculty members can intervene against these challenges. Specifically, the
literature centered their recommendations on educating university faculty on the military culture
(Albright & Bryan, 2018; Gonzalez & Elliot, 2016; Lim et al., 2018; Military Family Research
Institute, 2015; Norman et al., 2015; Osborne, 2014). However, there is a gap in the literature
surrounding university faculty members raised in the military culture. The purpose of this study
is to examine the perceptions and experiences of those military veteran faculty members in U.S.
institutions of higher education.

2
Background of the Problem
The challenges faced by student veterans are well known. The results of Rudd et al.’s
(2011) survey demonstrated nearly half, 46%, of student veterans were symptomatic of PTSD.
Gonzalez and Elliot (2016) linked student veterans’ impeded adaptation to the collegiate
environment with PTSD induced behaviors. Other research displayed how student veterans’ selfawareness of their stereotypes (Motl et al., 2022) and perceptions of university culture (Osborne,
2014) inhibited a sense of psychological safety. Hitt et al. (2015) wrote of dissonance between
the discipline of military culture and the free spirit of academia. Additional researchers posited
this cultural divide as the primary source of poor communication and misunderstandings between
student veterans and their professors (Lim et al., 2018). Norman et al.’s (2015) student veteran
interviews repeated these themes of mental well-being and belonging.
Whatever the sources of these barriers, it is clear university faculty are not prepared to
assist student veterans in overcoming them. In a large (N = 14,763) field study, Albright and
Bryan (2018) showed an overwhelming majority (95%) of faculty members feel responsible for
creating a supportive environment for student veterans while simultaneously feeling ill prepared
to do so (70%). Furthermore, 56% of respondents reported insufficient knowledge about student
veteran challenges. The authors concluded their study’s summary by recommending the
development of faculty focused interventions to develop “military cultural competency” (p. 4).
Several other researchers echoed Albright and Bryan’s recommendations, describing the
interventions as workshops, diversity training, social events, or contact opportunities (Gonzalez
& Elliot, 2016; Lim et al., 2018; Military Family Research Institute, 2015; Motl et al., 2022;
Norman et al., 2015; Osborne, 2014).

3
Statement of the Problem
Contradicting the breadth of work addressing actions to better the capabilities of civilian
faculty members in their support of student veterans, only a limited amount of research has
identified the potential impacts of military veteran faculty members on student veteran barriers.
Miller (2015), in an ethnographic study examining the characteristics of successful student
veteran mentorship, observed how military veteran faculty members possessed greater empathy
towards student veterans because of their military experiences. Olt (2018) reflected on his
experiences as a student veteran and military veteran faculty member, concluding additional
military veteran faculty members can serve as intermediaries between student veterans and
civilian faculty members and increase the institution’s overall ability to support student veterans.
Other researchers highlighted faculty members’ contact with the military increased their
motivation to support student veterans (Gonzalez & Elliot, 2016), but omitted mention of faculty
members with military experience. Lastly, a lone collection of essays details the experiences of a
variety of military veterans operating within academia (Grohowski & McClees, 2023).
This omittance is indicative of a larger gap in the literature surrounding military veteran
faculty members. Repeated searches of Google Scholar and the University of Southern
California (USC) library for “military veteran faculty” and “military veteran professors” returned
almost no relevant studies, with the exceptions mentioned in the previous paragraph. In addition
to this dearth of qualitative studies, quantitative data is also lacking. While the U.S. government
mandates federally funded universities to provide faculty demographic data regarding gender,
race, and ethnicity; this survey does not include veteran status (Integrated Postsecondary
Education Data System [IPEDS], n.d.; S. Adeva, personal communication, July 6, 2022). The
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2022), when addressing veteran employment, combines

4
education and health services in their statistical summaries, making detailed analysis impossible.
Conversely, specific data do exist to describe military veterans as preschool, kindergarten,
elementary, and secondary school teachers (National Center for Education Statistics [NCES],
2017). To summarize, there is insufficient research on military veteran faculty members’
perceptions and experiences, to include the issues of equity they may face.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to explore the perceptions and experiences of military
veteran faculty members in U.S. institutions of higher education. It does so by investigating
military veterans who successfully transitioned into higher education faculty roles within those
institutions. Specifically, this study uses qualitative interviews to look for opportunities for
contact between civilian faculty members and military veterans, identify the support structures
used by military veterans to transition to academia, and learn how military veteran faculty
members engage in contact with civilian faculty members and civilian university students.
Underpinning this study is Gordon Allport’s intergroup contact theory, which posited how
increased positive contact between group members results in decreased prejudice between the
members and their groups (Allport, 1979).
By examining military veteran faculty members, this study also responds to previous
literature’s research recommendations. Olt (2018), a military veteran faculty member, advocated
for investigating how military veteran faculty can impact university cultures. Another researcher
supported further research into the impacts of student veteran academic advising (Miller, 2015).
Lastly, Pascarella (2006) implied additional research into the university culture within academia
by supporting the expansion of university diversity studies to “include an array of experiences,
interactions, and interventions more inclusive than just those based on race or ethnicity” (p. 511).

5
This study is an initial point of departure for future research into the previously discussed
knowledge gap by enhancing the understanding of military veteran faculty members. It will also
contribute to the body of research surrounding Allport’s intergroup contact theory. Two research
questions guide this study:
1. How do the perceptions and experiences of military veterans influence their transition
into academia?
2. What are the perceptions and experiences of military veteran faculty members
teaching in U.S. institutions of higher education?
Context of the Study
This study, to develop as broad an understanding as possible, was a field-based
qualitative review within U.S. institutions of higher education. The institutions are privately or
publicly funded and were not excluded from the study because of their student body population
or residency. However, this dissertation excluded all service academies and post-secondary
educational organizations sponsored by the military, as their faculty and campus may not reflect
the problems outlined earlier in this chapter. This study included military veteran faculty
members regardless of prior service branch, previously held rank, time in service, time in
academia, or faculty position.
Significance of the Study
Addressing support to student veterans is vital due to the size of the affected population,
financial costs of federal educational benefits, and the negative outcomes on student veteran
health resulting from failure. Each year 200,000 members of the military transition back to the
civilian community (U.S. Department of Labor, n.d.). While data do not exist to identify the
number of new veterans transitioning into school each year, NCES data indicated student

6
veterans numbered 1,052,300 and made up 4.5% and 5.1% of U.S. undergraduate and
postgraduate students in 2015 (Holian & Adam, 2020). The costs of educational benefits
provided to those student veterans climbed from $12.1 billion in 2010 to $14.3 billion in 2015
and slightly decreased to $13.6 billion in 2017 (Holian & Adam, 2020; Stauffer et al., 2019).
Rudd et al.’s (2011) study of student veterans (N = 628) showed 10.4% thought of suicide
“often or very often” (p. 354), and 46% were symptomatic of PTSD. The authors’ work also predated Albright and Bryan’s (2018) conclusions which stated university faculty and staff require
educational interventions to address student veterans’ mental health challenges. Other
researchers have echoed student veteran suicide concerns, citing the loss of social connectiveness
as contributory to suicide risk (Kintzle et al., 2018). Additionally, Whiteman and Barry (2011)
learned civilian students consume alcohol for social factors, while student veterans drink due to
coping motives. The authors reported drinking to cope, and the negative psychological issues
attributed to coping mechanisms, increased the health risks to student veterans.
Military veteran faculty members can minimize economic losses and reduce health issues
through their support and understanding of student veterans. The perceptions and experiences of
military veteran faculty members have imbued them with the cultural knowledge needed to
provide student veterans the support called for by Miller (2015) and Olt (2018). In addition,
intergroup contact theory’s demonstrated primary, secondary, and tertiary transfer effects
(Meleady et al., 2019; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011) mean military veteran faculty members’
positive interactions with civilian faculty and students should result in increased support from
those two groups to student veterans.
Definition of Terms
This dissertation uses the following defined terms:

7
Civil-military divide or civ-mil gap is the “geographic, demographic, cultural, and social
gap” between the U.S. population and members of the U.S. armed forces (Carter et al., 2017,
para. 4).
Common goals are objectives shared by different groups displaying equal obligation
towards the goal and demonstrating similar exertion in accomplishing it (Allport, 1979;
Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011).
Cooperation is “the perception of common interests and common humanity between
members of the two groups” (Allport, 1979, p. 281).
Dialectical tensions are “a system of oppositions that logically or functionally negate one
another” (Baxter & Scharp, 2015, p. 1).
Equal status refers to equality of power “between majority and minority groups”
(Allport, 1979, p. 281).
Institutional support or organizational support is when an establishment permits or
endorses intergroup contact by way of cultural norm, policy, or a legal rule (Allport, 1979).
Military education institutions (MEI) are organizations which conduct in-person or
virtual professional military education (PME) to “equip attendees with knowledge, skills, and/or
experience to succeed in the performance of DoD missions” (Joint Staff, 2020, p. GL-5).
Military veteran or veteran, as defined by Title 38 U.S. Code § 101, refer to “a person
who served in the active military, naval, air, or space service, and who was discharged or
released therefrom under conditions other than dishonorable” (2023, para. 2). This term includes
all members of the U.S. Army (USA), U.S. Navy (USN), U.S. Marine Corps (USMC), U.S.
Coast Guard (USCG), U.S. Air Force (USAF), and U.S. Space Force (USSF). This term

8
excludes members of these branches’ reserve components, the Army National Guard, and the Air
National Guard unless the member served on active-duty or retired after 20 years of service.
Primary transfer effect is when the effect of positive intergroup conduct generalizes to
members of an outgroup who were not part of the intergroup contact situation (Meleady et al.,
2019; Pettigrew, 2021; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011).
Salience or semantic distance is the perception or judgment of how well an individual
represents or reflects the typical characteristics of a group they are a member of (Brown &
Hewstone, 2005; Meleady et al., 2019).
Second-career academics are individuals who become faculty members after developing
a substantive professional character (Dash, 2018; Herman et al., 2021; LaRocco & Bruns, 2006).
Secondary transfer effect is a reduction in prejudice from a group involved in a contact
situation to a group not involved in the contact situation (Meleady et al., 2019; Pettigrew, 2009,
2021; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011).
Student veterans refers to students who are “active-duty service members, members of
the National Guard and Reserve, and veterans” (Gonzalez & Elliot, 2016, p. 44). It is more
inclusive than the legal definition of veteran to more accurately reflect the challenges faced by
students with military affiliations (Vacchi, 2012).
Tertiary transfer effect is the expansion of mental agility, ingenuity, and efficiency
resultant from positive intergroup contact (Boin et al., 2021; Meleady et al., 2019).
University faculty members, faculty members, faculty, or academia refer to individuals
employed by U.S. institutions of higher education as categorized by IPEDS. These categories
included professor, associate professor, instructor, adjunct professor, or lecturer. Faculty may be
tenured, on tenure track, or not on tenure track.

9
U.S. institutions of higher education, universities, colleges, or postsecondary education
organizations refer to U.S. organizations meeting the Carnegie Classification of Institutes of
Higher Education (2023) definitions as “doctoral universities…master’s colleges and
universities…[and] baccalaureate colleges” (paras. 2-4). This term excludes organizations
defined by Carnegie as either “baccalaureate/associate’s colleges…associates’ colleges…special
focus institutions…[or] tribal colleges and universities” (paras. 5-8). For this dissertation, these
terms also exclude the U.S. service academies and MEIs.
Organization of the Study
The dissertation follows a traditional five-chapter model. Chapter 1 provides an overview
of the study. Chapter 2 highlights the relevant literature surrounding the theoretical framework,
military veteran faculty member contact opportunities, transition support structures, posttransition ripple effects, and establishes the conceptual framework for the study. Chapter 3
details the research methodology, sampling, protocols, and analysis. Chapter 4 outlines the
findings gathered from the perceptions and experiences of military veteran faculty members and
compares them to previous literature. This study concludes with recommendations for practice
and future research in Chapter 5.

10
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature
This chapter begins with the theoretical framework of intergroup contact theory and its
applicability to the study. Following this foundation are examinations of pre-transition
opportunities for contact between military veterans and civilian faculty members, barriers and
support structures pertaining to military veterans transitioning to academia, and the ripple effects
of contact within the university environment. Each of these segments will scrutinize relevant
literature and identify gaps. As this chapter builds, an initial conceptual framework will emerge.
Intergroup Contact Theory
This chapter leads with the theoretical framework to ensure a shared understanding of
intergroup contact theory’s key concepts and to provide a lens through which to interpret the
remaining elements of the literature review. These key concepts provide context as to how pretransition opportunities for contact may catalyze military veterans to transition into careers as
university faculty or explain how military veteran faculty members can directly and indirectly
impact student veterans. The following section discusses the history and components of
intergroup contact theory, its applicability to the study, and common critiques of the theory.
The Theory
Not all researchers agreed that intergroup contact results in positive outcomes. Early 20th
century sociologists instead theorized group member’s perceptions of their group’s superiority
would result in antagonistic behavior and clashes with out-groups (Sumner, 1906). During the
interwar period, Baker (1934) postulated contact between differing racial groups would result in
strong negative emotions, if not physical violence. Pettigrew and Tropp (2011) attributed these
premature thoughts to bleak outlooks informed by Social Darwinism or pro-segregationist views.
Whatever the source, mindsets shifted in the following decades.

11
Development of the Theory
Empirical studies demonstrating positive outcomes from intergroup contact, as well as an
increased understanding of its complexity, progressed in the years following the second world
war. The Human Relations Movement, rallying behind a banner of brotherhood, pursued the
eradication of racial prejudice by eliminating group members’ ignorance towards out-groups
(Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011). Brophy (1945) observed decreases in prejudice between White and
Black merchant mariners as a function of number of shared voyages or combat engagements.
Allport’s initial work, a collaborative effort with Bernard Kramer (1946), acknowledged Sumner
(1906) and Baker (1934) by admitting the possibility of conflict arising from contact. However,
the authors also showed how contact between Blacks and Whites, as well as Jewish and nonJewish people, resulted in decreased intergroup prejudice when both groups held equal status in
the contact situation. This observation continued in latter research.
In a book published the following year, Williams (1947) identified four principles which
contribute to enhanced intergroup relationships. Williams later collaborated on another catalytic
study, which reinforced Brophy’s (1945) findings of intergroup contact in combat situations
reducing racial prejudice (Stouffer et al., 1949). Additional research continued to examine the
effects of contact on prejudice and provided additional hypotheses leading to 1954 when Gordon
Allport first published The Nature of Prejudice (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011). This seminal work,
republished in 1979, coalesced earlier work with Allport’s observations into intergroup contact
theory. In it, Allport supposed intergroup contact would reduce prejudice if four conditions
existed within the contact: the groups possessed equal status in comparison to each other, sought
to achieve a common objective, cooperated, and organizations condoned the intergroup contact.

12
While research surrounding intergroup contact peaked in the decade of Allport’s
landmark publication, Brown and Hewstone (2005) showed further examination of this topic.
The authors tabulated papers on intergroup contact and determined almost 80% of published
research between 1950-1959 addressed this topic. They noted a decline following this peak, but
intergroup contact research still accounted for more than 30% of all published papers since 1980.
One such paper proposed an improved model, shown in Figure 1, which reflected new thoughts
regarding Allport’s four conditions, personalities of group members, and the impact on prejudice
of contact over time (Pettigrew, 1998). Since 2002, researchers have published almost 1,000
papers on intergroup contact (Paolini et al., 2021), including a longitudinal report addressing
conflict between intergroup interaction and contact (MacInnis & Page-Gould, 2015).
Allport’s Four Conditions
The four conditions of positive intergroup contact, equal status, common goals,
cooperation, and institutional approval, provide a means of evaluating contact opportunities for
their likelihood of reducing prejudice. As part of their meta-analysis, Pettigrew and Tropp (2011)
examined 696 examples of intergroup contact. Nineteen percent of those examples involved
situations where all four of Allport’s conditions where present, the remaining 81% either did not
reflect these conditions or the studies did not provide enough information validate presence of
those conditions. The authors quantitatively analyzed these two categories of samples and
demonstrated while Allport’s four conditions where not essential prerequisites for positive
contact leading to reduced prejudice, they were important enabling factors. This analysis held
true for their holistic examination of the four values, as well as when they tested each condition
separately.

13
Figure 1
Pettigrew’s Reformulated Contact Theory
Note. Adapted from Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of
Psychology, 49(1), 65-85. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65

14
The first of the four conditions put forth by Allport is “equal status between majority and
minority groups” (1979, p. 281). Allport and Kramer (1946), and later Williams (1947),
previously established this condition of contact in their work. Additional research compared and
contrasted the concept of equal status within the contact situation and outside of the contact
situation and remarked on the difficulty of defining and establishing equal status (Riordan,
1978). Pettigrew (1998) provides clarity with his interpretation of equal status as equality of
power among the groups and within the contact situation. This power manifests as fair
opportunities for both groups to provide thoughts, make choices, utilize resources, and take
action in a given contact situation (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011). However, Allport did not describe
all contact situations as equal. Instead, he portrayed contact in the workplace as more likely to
reduce prejudice because of its propensity to provide the opportunity for the next condition.
The second condition for positive intergroup contact is the “pursuit of common goals”
(Allport, 1979, p. 281). This pillar is also one of Williams’s (1947) original variables, and
Stouffer et al. (1949) observed the critical role common goals played in the successful
desegregation of soldiers. Allport (1979) believed this condition to be vital to shifting groups’
viewpoints of each other and stated when intergroup contact requires participants to take action
together, then the participants must question their prejudices. Meta-analysis of intergroup theory
has confirmed positive intergroup contact is enabled by common goals and expounded on this
variable to also include the groups’ obligation towards the goal and their exertion in achieving
the goal (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011). These authors provided linkages to the next condition when
they emphasized the role of collaboration towards achieving the aforementioned common goals.
The third condition is cooperation, defined by Allport (1979) as “the perception of
common interests and common humanity between members of the two groups” (p. 281).

15
Literature pre-dating Allport’s establishment of intergroup contact theory also worked to
establish a sense of togetherness (Brophy, 1945; Stouffer et al., 1949; Williams, 1947). While
those studies focused on men in combat, other researchers have demonstrated the value of
cooperation, and the pitfalls of competition, on reducing prejudice between groups outside of
life-or-death contact situations. The jigsaw classroom, pioneered by Aronson et al. (1978), is a
model for intergroup contact in elementary schools which demonstrated the impact of
cooperation on reduced prejudicial feelings between groups of children. The Robbers Cave
Study observed competition foster an increase in hostility between two racially and gender
homogenous groups of children, followed by a reduction in antipathy when the researchers
mandated cooperation (Sherif, 1988). Pettigrew and Tropp’s (2011) work captured numerous and
similar studies which reinforced the positive effects of cooperation on intergroup contact, within
and outside of the United States. The final enabling condition differs from the previous three in
that it is not a function of the groups’ members, but of the contact situation’s environment.
The final condition which enables positive intergroup contact is “if this contact is
sanctioned by institutional support” (Allport, 1979, p. 281). He further defined this support as
evidenced by a cultural or legal rule or norm. Examples of the effects of institutional support on
intergroup contact are present in studies examining the desegregation of the military (Brophy,
1945; Landis et al., 1984; Stouffer et al., 1949) or the impacts of post-war Fair Employment
Practices Commissions (Allport, 1979). Multiple studies within the context of elementary
schools also demonstrated the contribution of institutional support to positive intergroup
relationships (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011). Allport (1979) further hypothesized how institutional
support of intergroup contact allows group members to recognize their own prejudices, enabling
the first steps towards resolution. In their studies, Pettigrew and Tropp (2011) identified a

16
ubiquitous presence of organizational support and pondered how this support may be more
significant than equal status, common goals, and cooperation.
In their meta-analysis, Pettigrew and Tropp (2011) reasserted their earlier views that
these four conditions are synergistic not individualistic. In later research, Pettigrew (2021)
voiced concern of oversimplification by others defining intergroup theory as merely these four
conditions. Instead, the author reiterated how equal status, common goals, cooperation, and
institutional approval of intergroup contact were indicators of positive contact and facilitators of
reduced prejudice (see also Boin et al., 2021). Moving forward now with a thorough definition of
positive intergroup contact, this study will examine the literature’s understanding of how the
effects of this contact can spread.
Effects of Positive Contact
If constructed without an understanding of how intergroup contact theory reduces
prejudice, efforts to improve relations between two groups may fall short. After determining the
antecedent properties of Allport’s conditions of contact, Pettigrew and Tropp (2011) examined
mediating variables to further explain just how positive intergroup contact correlates with
reduced prejudice. Their research largely eliminated the Human Relations Movement’s earliest
theory of reducing prejudice by increasing understanding and determined the mediator of
“enhanced general knowledge” to have a trivial effect (p. 79). Instead, the author’s quantitative
analysis showed contact’s diminution of prejudice through decreased anxiety and increased
empathy, with each of these mediating responsibilities responsible for almost 30% of the total
reduction in prejudice. Boin et al. (2021) also included these two factors in their model of
intergroup contact’s transfer effects. To summarize, intergroup contact with equal status,
common goals, cooperation, and institutional approval enables decreased anxiety and increased

17
empathy which, in turn, reduces prejudice. Furthermore, the literature illustrates how these
reductions in prejudice may manifest beyond the original contact participants. The literature
categorizes these phenomena as primary, secondary, or tertiary generalization (Boin et al., 2021;
Meleady et al, 2019; Pettigrew, 2009, 2021; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011).
Primary transfer is when the effect of positive intergroup conduct, reduced prejudice
between the groups, generalizes to members of the outgroup who were not part of the intergroup
contact (Meleady et al., 2019; Pettigrew, 2021; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011). Figure 2 provides a
visual representation of this effect. Imagine a situation where members of Group A interact with
members from Group B. If the situation embodied the necessary conditions for positive
intergroup contact and fostered the critical mediators of reduced anxiety and increased empathy,
the members of Group A and Group B would experience reduced prejudice between themselves.
By the phenomena of primary transfer, the members of Group A would also feel reduced
prejudice towards members of Group B not involved in the contact situation. Likewise, the
members of Group B would feel reduced prejudice towards members of Group A not involved in
the contact situation.
Pettigrew and Tropp (2011) identified the efficacy of the primary transfer effect outside
of the situation in which the original positive intergroup contact took place. The authors
calculated almost no difference in the correlation between contact and reduced prejudice for
similar (r = -.23) and dissimilar (r = -.24) contact situations. Boin et al. (2021) reinforced earlier
thoughts on empathy and reduced anxiety and cited these affective variables as key mediators of
primary transfer (see also Brown & Hewstone, 2005). Lastly, researchers have also learned how
perceptions of group members' typicality may modify primary transfer (Boin et al., 2019; Brown
& Hewstone, 2005; Meleady et al., 2019; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011).

18
Figure 2
Depiction of Intergroup Contact Theory Primary Transfer

19
Researchers have referred to this typicality as either “salience” (Brown & Hewstone,
2005, p. 257) or “semantic distance” (Meleady et al., 2019, p. 432), and have demonstrated how
the positive effects of intergroup contact are stronger if the representatives of the group
demonstrate the characteristics normally associated with their groups. Alternatively, if group
representatives are not perceived to be good examples, the effects of positive intergroup contact
are reduced. In addition to primary transfer, the benefits of positive contact can ripple further
outward from the original situation.
Within intergroup contact theory, secondary transfer further generalizes reduced
prejudice. Secondary transfer is the reduction in prejudice between members from groups
involved in the contact situation to members of groups not involved in the contact situation
(Meleady et al., 2019; Pettigrew, 2009, 2021; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011). As depicted in Figure 3,
secondary transfer is present if members of Group B, following their contact with Group C,
demonstrated reduced prejudice towards members of Group E. Likewise, secondary transfer is in
effect if Group C has reduced prejudicial feelings towards Group D. As with primary transfer,
empathy and reduced anxiety are important mediating variables for reducing prejudice (Boin et
al., 2019; Brown & Hewstone, 2005).
Furthermore, a meta-analysis of published intergroup contact research highlighted
quantifiable similarities of reduced prejudice between groups within and outside of the contact
situation (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011). These researchers determined an effect value of r = -.23 for
reduced prejudice between groups participating in the initial situation, and r = -.19 for reduced
prejudice between groups not part of the original contact situation. With additional similarity to
primary transfer, group member’s salience moderates the secondary transfer effect (Brown &
Hewstone, 2005; Meleady et al., 2019; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011).

20
Figure 3
Depiction of Intergroup Contact Theory Secondary Transfer

21
Moreover, similarities between the outgroups involved in the contact and the outgroup
not involved can magnify the secondary transfer effect (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011). In Figure 4,
Group C and Group E have a common cultural identity represented by green shading. This
commonality may increase the secondary transfer effect between Group B and Group E.
Alternatively, Boin et al. (2019) identified ways for negative intergroup contact to mediate these
effects. As an example, friction between Group B and Group D could reduce the expected
secondary transfer effects between Group C and Group D.
The recently introduced concept of the tertiary transfer effect speaks to an expansion of
cognitive abilities resultant from positive intergroup contact (Boin et al., 2021; Meleady et al.,
2019). This expansion includes mental agility, ingenuity, and efficiency (Meleady et al., 2019).
These researchers spoke to tertiary transfer being a cognitive phenomenon, contrary to the
affective phenomena of primary and secondary transfer. Additionally, they stated close semantic
distance enhances primary and secondary transfer, whereas tertiary transfer intensifies through
increased semantic distance. This difference is due to an increase in cognitive load brought on by
a subject resolving the differences between prototypical and archetypical group members.
This section presented multiple examples to illustrate the primary, secondary, and tertiary
transfer effects within intergroup contact theory. Within these examples were the groups of
military veterans (Group A), civilian faculty members (Group B), military veteran faculty
members (Group C), civilian students (Group D), and student veterans (Group F). However,
there is a gap in literature applying intergroup contact theory to these groups’ interactions. The
following section will confirm the applicability of intergroup contact theory to this study.

22
Figure 4
Depiction of Salience Upon Intergroup Contact Theory Secondary Transfer

23
Applicability within Groups
Despite minimal research examining intergroup contact within the military community,
literature addressing the military’s various subgroups and the prejudice experienced by military
veterans illustrates the theory’s applicability to this study. Allport (1979) defined in-groups as
“any cluster of people who can use the term ‘we’ with the same significance” (p. 37). He also
listed many potential categories of groups, including racial, ethnic, sex, ideological, and
occupational. While the U.S. military is largely homogenous, sufficient evidence exists to reveal
the presence of these subgroups (DoD, 2020; Foy & Restifo, 2018; Kamarck, 2019; Meadows e
al., 2018; Schake & Mattis, 2016). Additional literature has demonstrated intergroup contact
theory’s applicability to these subgroups (Paluck et al., 2019) as well the observed, perceived,
and demonstrated stereotypes against veterans.
Racial and Ethnic Groups
Racial and ethnic identities are one way to classify U.S. servicemembers and military
veterans. The most recent DoD (2020) demographics reported the U.S. military as consisting of
over 1.3 million people who are predominately White (69%). However, the 31% who reported as
a racial minority are from a multitude of ethnic backgrounds. Black or African Americans
represent 17% of the active-duty military, as do the Hispanic or Latino community (DoD, 2020).
This report also listed Asian representation at 5%, American Indians or Alaskan Natives at 1%,
and Native Hawaiians or other Pacific Islanders at 1%. Of note, the military Hispanic or Latino
respondents largely represented themselves as multi-racial, therefore these percentages do not
add up to 100%.
The earliest work on intergroup contact theory focused on groups defined by their racial
or ethnic characteristics. Allport (1979) based the preponderance of his work on Black and White

24
groups’ contact, as well as Jewish and non-Jewish groups’ contact. Pettigrew and Tropp (2011)
analyzed a multitude of racially and ethnically focused studies, and cited Chang (1973), Riordan
(1978), Wagner et al. (1989), Bornman and Mynhart (1991), and McKay and Pittam (1993)
among others. More recently, Lemmer and Wagner (2015) demonstrated reduced prejudice
through intergroup contact outside of the laboratory. Their longitudinal study also exhibited
primary and secondary transfer effects. Other researchers compared students’ perceptions of
diversity at a predominately White campus and a diverse campus, and noted a correlation
between intergroup contact, positive perceptions of campus diversity efforts, and decreased
reporting of racial harassment (Dawson & Cuevas, 2020).
Additional research applied the tenets of intergroup contact theory to a community fitness
program sponsored by a non-profit organization (St. Vil & Boaitey, 2021). This study
qualitatively demonstrated a reduction in prejudice between a fitness program’s White and Black
participants, as well as between White and Hispanic participants. The research completed since
Allport first published his theory continues to demonstrate the applicability of intergroup contact
theory to interactions between racial groups, and therefore establishes the possibility of applying
the theory to the U.S. military and military veterans.
Gender and Sexual Orientation Groups
In addition to racial and ethnic identities, gender and sexual orientation may categorize
members of the U.S. military. Eighty-three percent of service members were men, while 17%
were women (DoD, 2020). While the DoD does not currently collect on transgender identities,
an analysis of all 2015 health related behaviors surveys from the (then) five branches of the
military reported 0.5% of men identified as transgender, and 1.2% of women identified as
transgender (Meadows et al., 2018). This study was also landmark in its description of sexual

25
identities within the U.S. military and identified gay or lesbian representation at 2% of men and
7% of women, and bisexual representation at 2% of men and 9% of women.
Recent intergroup contact studies have also addressed groups defined by gender or sexual
orientation. Halim et al. (2021) observed adolescents over the course a school year and noted
how positive intergroup contact reduced gender-based distrust, increased affirmative emotions,
and improved other-gender perceptions. Other researchers have demonstrated the validity of
Allport’s theory to adult gender studies and demonstrated how positive intergroup contact
between straight men and feminist women developed men’s self-awareness and encouraged
solidarity with the women (Wiley et al., 2021). Baldner et al. (2022) used intergroup contact
theory to examine employee perceptions of women supervisors. The researchers detected a
positive relationship between intergroup contact and perceptions, and expressly identified
contact quality as significantly more impactful than contact quantity. Other contemporary studies
include Rani and Samuel (2019) and Massey et al. (2021), who discerned a quantifiable
reduction in transphobia and increased support of trans-friendly policies following positive
intergroup contact.
While Pettigrew and Tropp (2011) do not explicitly address gender groups, their metaanalysis does address groups categorized by their sexual orientation. Among others, the authors
cite research by Herek (1988, 2002), Herek and Capitanio (1996), and Herek and GonzalezRivera (2006) in their book. Additional studies by Zingora and Graff (2019) determined positive
intergroup contact to reduce prejudice against the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
community. These researchers also observed secondary transfer effect when the in-group’s
contact with an ethnic outgroup reduced prejudice against gay people. Another study noted a
transposed relationship; positive intergroup contact with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender

26
people reduced prejudice in ideological outgroups (Lindsay, 2021). Overall, the literature further
demonstrates the applicability of intergroup contact theory to the gender and sexual orientation
groups which exist within the supergroup of military veterans.
Ideological Groups
Examining ideologies within the U.S. military population identifies additional group
variety. Schake and Mattis (2016) compared data from a 1998 Triangle Institute for Security
Studies and their own YouGov poll, and observed Republican, Democrat, and Independent party
preferences among military leadership. An additional longitudinal study examined changes in
political party loyalty within the U.S. military veteran community (Foy & Restifo, 2018).
Kamark (2019) observed further ideological diversity in her report to Congress, which outlined
the representation of various religions among members of the U.S. military.
Similar to the previously discussed groups, there is ample literature relating intergroup
contact theory to ideological sets. Allport (1979) listed ideological artifact reviews as one of
seven ways to measure differences in groups. Pettigrew and Tropp (2011) analyzed secondary
transfer effects related to belief systems in studies by Martin and Hewstone (2008) as well as
Alvaro and Crano (1997). Recently completed research has shown how increased intergroup
contact reduced prejudice and manifested in less voting for European political parties who
advocated for anti-immigration policy (Charitopoulou & García-Manglano, 2018). Other
research has observed reduced bias between members of U.S. political parties when they
engaged in contact with each other (Bond et al., 2018; Lin et al., 2020). In addition to political
contexts, individual studies and a quantitative meta-analysis of research from the last decade has
depicted positive intergroup contact’s diminishment of religious prejudice (Gravelle, 2021;

27
Orchard et al., 2021; Tondok et al., 2022). Therefore, despite the myriad of beliefs present in the
military veteran community, intergroup contact theory is still apropos.
Occupational Groups
A fourth group type within the U.S. military, and one which encompasses members from
the three previously discussed sub-groups, is vocational specialty. A review of publicly available
information illustrated a wide variety of job types within the six branches of the military. The
USA and USN each advertised more than 200 vocational categories (USA, n.d.-b; USN, n.d.).
The USMC promoted more than 300 occupational specialties, while the USCG publicized 19
separate career fields (USCG, n.d-b.; USMC, n.d-a). Lastly, the USAF and USSF offered more
than 200 total job options (USAF, n.d.-a; USSF, n.d.). This assortment demonstrates a need to
consider the veteran community’s previous occupations as more than simply soldier, sailor,
marine, coast guardsman, airman, or guardian.
Multiple studies have suggested intergroup contact theory also applies to groups who
differ by occupation. Toloui-Wallace et al. (2022) detected evidence of common goals,
cooperation, and institutional approval contributing to positive working relationships between
various specialized medical professionals. Wang et al. (2022) expounded on the outcomes of
intergroup contact theory, finding positive intergroup contact between construction supervisors
and employees could repair trust following a conflict. Other researchers examined intergroup
contact between civilians and police officers and established a correlational relationship between
positive contact and favorable perceptions (Sargent et al., 2020). Separately, Hill et al. (2021)
examined a community-police relations intervention based on intergroup contact theory and
observed promising outcomes resulting from the contact situation.

28
Button’s (2021) examination of intergroup contact theory and military prospects is an
exception to the literature gap surrounding the purpose and context of this study. Even the
previously mentioned studies on military desegregation (Brophy, 1945; Landis et al., 1984;
Stouffer et al., 1949) focused on the racial groups within the service, and not the military group
itself. However, sufficient literature exists to substantiate the racial, ethnic, gender, sexual
orientation, ideological, and occupational groups comprising the U.S. military veteran
population. In addition to the previously discussed literature, Paluck et al. (2019) completed a
meta-analytic review of intergroup contact research conducted since 2006 which addressed
racial, gender, sexual orientation, religious, and other differences. Furthermore, Allport posited
prejudiced communities often “cross-cut” his established categories (p. 89). Therefore, by
establishing applicability of the theoretical framework to the parts which make up the veteran
community, this study posits applicability to the whole veteran community, allowing this study
to move beyond the literature gap. A review of literature addressing stereotypes of the veteran
community further bolsters intergroup contact theory’s applicability by demonstrating the
presence of prejudice.
Prejudice Against Veterans
While empirical literature does not address stereotypes against military veteran faculty
members, sufficient evidence exists to demonstrate the presence of stereotypes held toward U.S.
military veterans as a community. These stereotypes consist of negative (Hipes & Gemoets,
2019; Lim et al., 2018; Motl et al., 2022; Osborne, 2014; Stanley et al., 2023; Stone et al., 2018;
Vaccaro, 2015) and positive prejudicial viewpoints (Hipes & Gemoets, 2019; Lim et al., 2018;
Motl et al., 2022; Stanley et al., 2023). Additionally, quantitative and qualitative studies have
observed these stereotypes in a variety of contexts, including the general public (Stanley et al.,

29
2023), the workforce (Hipes & Gemoets, 2019; Stone et al., 2018), and academia (Lim et al.,
2018; Motl et al., 2022; Osborne, 2014; Vaccaro, 2015). Additionally, military veteran faculty
members’ reflections mirror these findings (Grohowski & McClees, 2023).
Most negative veteran stereotypes address anticipated outcomes of military cultural
indoctrination or the effects of combat experiences. Individuals unfamiliar with military culture
may assume veterans require continuous orders and management (Lim et al., 2018), have
difficulty relating to new social groups (Stone et al., 2018) or situations (Motl et al., 2022), are
incapable of performing outside of the military (Hipes & Gemoets, 2019), or may be less
educated (Osborne, 2014). Further evidence demonstrates individuals assume veterans with
combat experience are apprehensive (Motl et al., 2022), suffer widely from mental illness or
PTSD, and are prone to violent actions (Hipes & Gemoets, 2019; Motl et al., 2022; Osborne,
2014). The idea of the damaged veteran (Carter et al., 2017; Osborne et al., 2014; Vaccaro, 2015)
becomes more widespread with the additional stereotyped view of service members encountering
similar, if not identical, experiences during their time in uniform (Vaccaro, 2015).
Poor knowledge of the U.S. military’s culture also contributes to positive stereotypes for
military veterans. Individuals may assume former service members to possess incredible
leadership competencies (Lim et al., 2018; Motl et al., 2022; Stanley et al., 2023), self-restraint
(Motl et al., 2022), collaborative tendencies (Stanley et al., 2018), or to be orderly and
methodical (Lim et al., 2018). Further stereotyping addresses the presumed nature of military
service and servicemembers. Stanley et al. (2023) documented the presumption of a veteran’s
heightened sense of service or sacrifice. These researchers also wrote about how this positive
stereotype deleteriously impacts veteran job placement. Additionally, while research has shown

30
civilians tend to adhere to more positive stereotypes, veterans have a stronger perception and
awareness of the negative stereotypes (Motl et al., 2022).
The research into veteran stereotypes reinforces the concept of contact as a solution. Lim
et al. (2018) described the stereotyping of veterans as a “hidden curriculum” stemming from a
lack of cultural knowledge (p. 299). The authors further postulated contact as a solution for
developing cultural understanding. Additional studies echoed this hypothesis (Motl et al., 2022;
Stone et al., 2018), and while these researchers did not specifically address intergroup contact as
described earlier in this chapter, they do lend credence to the selection of Allport’s theory as a
theoretical framework. However, intergroup contact theory is not without its critiques. The next
section will address the predominant complaints about intergroup contact theory, as well as
situations that may limit the effects of positive intergroup contact.
Criticisms of Intergroup Contact Theory
Two commonly discussed criticisms of intergroup contact theory are the potential for
intergroup contact to breed distrust, and the failure of positive contact to result in widespread
reduction of prejudice. The idea of contact between dissimilar groups making members less
trustful was in place almost a half century before Allport documented his hypothesis and recalls
Sumner’s (1906) and Baker’s (1934) earlier arguments against intergroup contact. Allport (1979)
cautioned against “casual contact” (p. 264) which may reinforce stereotyped thinking and noted
his literature review revealed an almost event split of positive and negative outcomes stemming
from contact. Other researchers argued increased diversity resulted in group members turning
inwards, shunning outgroups, and reducing communal trust (Putnam, 2007). Trawalter et al.
(2009) likewise described intergroup contact as a stressful event, with corresponding and
negative impacts on group members’ mental and physical health.

31
Additional meta-analyses illustrated the potential for negative contact outcomes to
outweigh positive outcome effects (McKeown & Dixon, 2017; Paolini et al., 2021). Fifteen years
later, Perry et al. (2022) reinforced Putnam’s (2007) findings. Through their survey, combined
with an examination of secondary data from 282 institutions, they portrayed a negative
association between faculty gender diversity and student success.
However, Perry et al. (2022) admitted their contact situations did not reflect the enabling
conditions of positive intergroup contact. Pettigrew and Tropp (2011) addressed Putnam’s (2007)
critiques, pointing out issues with methodology, data analysis, and external reliability. Other
researchers recognized the potential negative consequences of real-world intergroup contact, but
correlated them with the temporal aspect of contact, and posited group member required
sufficient time to move beyond the stresses of initial intergroup interaction (MacInnis & PageGould, 2015; Pettigrew, 1998). Therefore, while research has demonstrated some negative
effects of intergroup contact, these negative effects are insufficient to dismiss the positive effects
of intergroup contact.
A second critique of intergroup contact theory is the presumption for intergroup contact
effects to remain localized within individuals. Pettigrew and Tropp (2011) and Paolini et al.
(2021) outlined a variety of alternative viewpoints regarding intergroup contact’s transfer effects.
Among these opponents are Dixon et al. (2005), Reicher (2007), and Forbes (1997), who agreed
that positive intergroup contact reduced individual prejudice, but did not affect social policy,
social change, or macro-level prejudice. Due to some studies’ levels of control over observed
intergroup contact, some researchers have argued that the lack of real-world contact in research
weakens subsequent policy recommendations (Dixon et al., 2005). Others have described an
unintended consequence, where intergroup contact stifled social change by minimizing the

32
outgroups’ perceived need for change (Reicher, 2007). Forbes (1997) postulated Allport’s theory
as unrealistic and applicable only to individuals. He further described intergroup contact’s ability
to reduce prejudice as diminished when measured cumulatively across the group.
More recently, Paluck et al. (2019) perceived a gap in intergroup contact studies
addressing adults. They cautioned against using results and findings from studies on children and
adolescents to inform policies to reduce the prejudice between adults. Other researchers have
documented segregation’s obstinacy as a barrier to contact’s influence on social change
(McKeown & Dixon, 2017). These researchers also noted additional and recent evidence
supporting Reicher’s (2007) findings, described as an “ironic effect” of intergroup contact
(McKeown & Dixon, 2017, p. 6).
While Pettigrew and Tropp (2011) admitted to intergroup contact effects being more
likely to reduce individuals’ prejudice than result in programmatic changes, they also described
reduced prejudicial feelings as a precursor to policy changes and acceptance of those changes.
Furthermore, they highlighted how the reduction in prejudice stemming from positive intergroup
contact occurred more strongly in the ingroup. Therefore, they posited it unlikely that better
relationships between outgroups and ingroups would lead to the prejudiced party suddenly
becoming copacetic with unfairness. Additionally, the authors took umbrage with Reicher’s
(2007) implications that social change was the sole responsibility of the outgroup, and instead
argued those in power can and should make the needed changes.
A new model from Hässler et al. (2021) provided a novel approach to evaluating
intergroup contact’s relationship with social change. This integrated contact-collective action
model illustrated the roles of group difference perception, convergent identities, satisfaction, and
ideologies as moderating variables on the journey from intergroup contact to social change. In

33
addition to addressing criticisms brought forth by Dixon et al. (2005), the model also addressed
Reicher’s (2007) assessment by speaking to the majority and minority groups in contact, further
illustrating the shared roles they play in advancing social change.
These criticisms aside, a final limitation of intergroup contact theory warrants discussion.
Allport (1979) was clear when he stated positive intergroup contact will not reduce prejudice
within all participants. Allport attributed this occurrence to individual personalities and wrote
that people less likely to experience the effects of positive intergroup contact were those with
poor familial relationships, aggressive tendencies, and inclinations towards authoritarianism.
Bohrer et al. (2019) observed similar resistance within some individuals possessing strong
negative presuppositions about migrant outgroups, and Gravelle (2021) noted a nearly identical
result in his study exploring how political affiliations moderated the effects of intergroup contact
on Islamophobia. Pettigrew and Tropp (2011) were unambiguous when they stated intergroup
contact cannot be a panacea for reducing bias.
Despite the criticisms and limitation of intergroup contact theory, Pettigrew and Tropp
(2011) steadfastly insisted on the bulk of research conducted on intergroup contact showing a
strong correlation to reduced prejudice between ingroups and outgroups. They described how
both groups experience reduced prejudice, but the majority ingroup experiences a stronger effect.
They demonstrated how the conditions of positive contact, equal status, common goals,
cooperation, and institutional approval led to reduced anxiety and increased empathy. In turn,
these reduced prejudice in groups defined by their race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation,
ideology, or occupation. Furthermore, the authors stated this reduced prejudice ripples beyond
the participants in the intergroup contact to members of similar and dissimilar groups. The broad

34
applicability of this theory enables its usage within the context of this study – military veteran
faculty members teaching in U.S. institutions of higher education.
Pre-Transition Opportunities for Contact
A complete illustration of all possible opportunities for contact between active-duty or
military veterans and civilian faculty members is unrealistic due to the considerable number of
individual backgrounds, career paths, and subordinate organizations within the U.S. military. The
2020 Demographics Profile of the Military Community depicted the broad geographic
placement, educational background, and age differences present across the more than 1.3 million
members of the armed forces. This dissertation previously discussed the variety of occupational
choices and career paths available to U.S. servicemembers. Other literature highlighted diversity
in hometowns and education (Center for Naval Analyses [CNA], n.d.; Goldberg et al., 2018), and
a brief analysis of one military branch’s organization showed the number of subordinate units
available to servicemembers (USMC, n.d.-d). Therefore, the following section will focus on
evidence describing the U.S. military career or milestone events most likely to provide
opportunities for positive contact between active-duty military or military veterans and civilian
faculty members. This segment addresses contact opportunities taking place before, during, and
after service in the armed forces.
Before Military Service
Before an individual joins the military, they may have opportunities for positive
intergroup contact with civilian faculty members. The DoD classifies military recruits’
educational backgrounds as one of three levels, with the highest level (Tier 1) including recruits
who are high school graduates and recruits who have finished their first semester of college-level
education (CNA, n.d.). More than 96% of military recruits are Tier 1 accessions. While the data

35
did not further differentiate individuals with or without college experience, it did provide a
comprehensive breakdown of the recruit’s age groups. Of the over 167,000 individuals who
joined the military in fiscal year 2019, 54-57% were 19 years old or younger, making college
experience less likely. Additionally, another report indicated only 19% of enlisted members
possessed an associate’s degree or higher (DoD, 2020).
Compare this level of education with the military’s officer population, where 85%
possessed a bachelor’s degree or higher (DoD, 2020). This contrast likely originates from the
pre-commissioning requirement of a bachelor’s degree for military officers (USAF, n.d.-a; USA,
n.d.-b; USCG, n.d.-b; USMC, n.d.-b; USN, n.d.; USSF, n.d.). Therefore, opportunities for
contact between soon-to-be military members and civilian faculty members most likely occur
within the military’s various officer commissioning programs. These programs primarily consist
of the reserve officer training corps (ROTC) and the service academies.
The Reserve Officer Training Corps
Opportunities for military officers to engage in positive intergroup contact with civilian
faculty members exist within thousands of ROTC programs. ROTC programs are commissioning
programs which combine civilian university education with niche military education to produce
commissioned officers in the USAF, USA, USN, USMC, and USSF (USAF ROTC [AFROTC],
n.d.-a; USA, n.d.-c; Naval Education and Training Command [NETC], n.d.-a). AFROTC
programs, which recently began producing USSF officers as well, are present in 1,048 civilian
colleges and universities in every state, Washington D.C., and Puerto Rico (AFROTC, n.d.-a).
Army ROTC is present in 1,017 civilian institutions for higher education within all 50
states, Washington D.C., and four additional U.S. territories (USA, n.d.-c). Navy ROTC
programs, which also include USMC equivalents, are less widespread (NETC, n.d.-a). Research

36
showed these programs only exist in 159 postsecondary education organizations across 38 states
and the District of Columbia. Combined, these programs produced approximately 30% of
military officers in 2018-2019 (CNA, n.d.), resulting in a considerable population entering the
U.S. military officer corps having had significant contact opportunities. Whether or not these
opportunities demonstrated the four enabling conditions (Allport, 1979: Pettigrew & Tropp,
2011) or the two critical mediators (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011) of positive intergroup contact is
unable to be determined from current research.
The Service Academies
Additional opportunities for future military officers to have positive contact with civilian
faculty members are present at the four service academies. These educational institutions differ
most significantly from civilian universities in that their primary missions are to graduate and
commission officers into their respective military branches (USAF Academy [USAFA], n.d.-b;
USCG Academy [USCGA], n.d-c.; U.S. Military Academy [USMA], n.d-a.; U.S. Naval
Academy [USNA], n.d.-b). As such, they integrate traditional undergraduate educational
requirements with continuous military indoctrination and training. Of note, this study omits data
from the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy as its graduates do not have to join the active-duty
military upon graduation (U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, n.d.).
The USMA, colloquially known as West Point, is located in New York (USMA, n.d.-a).
In 2022 this school graduated and commissioned 1,014 USA officers (Garcia, 2022). A review of
the USMA website indicates a blend of 80% military and 20% civilian faculty members and
demonstrates the academy’s potential to provide pre-commissioned USA officers with intergroup
contact opportunities (USMA, n.d.-b).

37
The USNA, oftentimes referred to as Annapolis, is the predominant service academy
option for future USN and USMC officers (USNA, n.d.-b). In 2022, 798 USN officers and 274
USMC officers graduated and received their commissions into their respective services (USNA,
2022). As with the USMA, the USNA also has a mixed faculty consisting of an approximately
equal split of 300 military professors and 300 civilian professors (USNA, n.d.-a).
The USCGA is the smallest of the four service academies, and exclusively commissions
USCG Officers (USCGA, n.d.-c). Located in Connecticut, the USCGA graduated and
commissioned 252 officers in 2022 (USCGA, 2022). A review of the nine academic major’s
individual webpages exposed an almost evenly blended faculty of 65 military and 70 civilian
faculty members (USCGA, n.d.-a).
The USAFA, the youngest of the four academies, is the principal service academy
commissioning choice for USAF and USSF officer (USAFA, n.d.-b). In 2019 the USAFA
produced 863 USAF and 94 USSF officers (Bowden, 2022). Mirroring the other service
academies, the USAFA also has a mix of civilian and military faculty members (USAFA, n.d.-a).
In 2019, the service academies accounted for 18-19% of all new officers in five of the six
branches of the military (CNA, n.d.); compiled statistics for USSF officers do not yet exist due to
the nascent nature of this branch. Compared to universities offering ROTC programs, these
service academies differ in their missions and their faculty’s makeup. Similar to ROTC
opportunities, research is lacking on the quality of the intergroup contact between civilians and
military members at the four service academies. Regardless, as the academies employ civilian
faculty members, contact opportunities are present. Further opportunities may present themselves
during the course of an individual’s military service.

38
During Military Service
There are too many subordinate units within the U.S. military to identify all which
employ civilian faculty members. An examination of one portion of the USMC, Training and
Education Command, illustrates this point. There are three divisions, a support staff, six special
staffs, and five major subordinate commands within Training and Education Command (USMC,
n.d.-d). Within one of those major subordinate commands, Marine Air Ground Task Force
Training Center, there are 10 subordinate elements (USMC, n.d.-a). Each of these elements vary
in size, composition, and mission. Furthermore, detailed descriptions of military and civilian
personnel within each of these elements, commands, and staffs are not publicly available.
Therefore, it is not feasible to determine where active-duty members of the military may or may
not experience positive intergroup contact with civilian faculty members in most military units.
However, there are distinct educational programs within the military which provide
opportunities for positive intergroup contact between military members and civilian faculty. For
example, the Joint Staff of the U.S. military issued policy letters instructing the separate
branches to provide PME to their officers (Joint Staff, 2020) and enlisted personnel (Joint Staff,
2021). In addition to PME, the military branches offer alternative post-graduate education
through military sponsored schools (Naval Postgraduate School [NPS], n.d.; USAF, n.d.-b),
programmatic affiliation with civilian institutions of higher education (USA, n.d.-a; USMC,
2012), or financial sponsorship (USCGA, n.d.-b). Lastly, contact opportunities are present for
active-duty enlisted personnel pursuing their officer commissions (NETC, n.d.-b; AFROTC n.d.-
b, n.d.-c; USA, n.d.-d; USCG, n.d.-a; USMC, n.d.-c).

39
Professional Military Education
A comparison of the officer and enlisted PME policies yields two distinct differences,
apart from their intended audiences. First, “military education institutions” for officers grant
master’s degrees (Joint Staff, 2020, p. A-9), while enlisted military education does not confer
any academic degrees. Second, the policy for officer institutions mandates the presence of
civilian faculty members. No such requirement exists for enlisted PME (Joint Staff, 2021).
Therefore, contact between members of the armed services and civilian faculty members is more
likely to occur within the military’s officer-focused institutions.
According to Joint Staff policy (2020) the purpose of MEIs is to provide students with
the requisite knowledge to ensure their preparation for future military assignments. This policy
summarizes the various resident, non-resident, degree, and non-degree PME programs offered
throughout the MEIs. With the exception of the National Intelligence University (NIU), the
degrees conferred by these institutions are all post-graduate level and focused on military studies,
operational planning, national strategy, or other related fields (Joint Staff, 2020; NIU, n.d.).
Four branches of the military sustain a service-specific school; the USAF, USA, USMC,
and USN (Air University, 2022; Army War College [AWC], n.d.; Marine Corps University
[MCU], n.d.; U.S. Naval War College [USNWC], n.d.). While these schools are service-specific,
students from all branches of the military may attend any university (Joint Staff, 2020). Unique
among the services, the USSF entered a partnership with John Hopkins University to meet their
branch’s PME needs (Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs, 2022). Two additional MEIs, the
National Defense University (NDU) and NIU, meet PME requirements but are not associated
with any specific branch of military service (Joint Staff, 2020; NDU, 2022; NIU, n.d.).

40
Within each of these institutions are varying degrees of civilian faculty presence. Air
University reported 30% of their faculty as civilian (Air University, 2022). A review of the AWC
online faculty directory revealed 72% of faculty members were civilian (AWC, n.d.), but earlier
literature argued only 24% are true civilians due to previous military experience (Mittelstadt,
2018). The USNWC described a distribution of 66% civilian faculty (USNWC, 2021). While a
review of the MCU faculty webpage showed an almost even split between military and civilian
faculty members (MCU, n.d.), a command brief reported only 14% of resident faculty members
were civilian. The NDU’s annual report for academic year 2020 did not differentiate between
faculty and staff but reported 70% of their personnel were DoD civilians. Faculty demographics
were not available for the NIU (n.d.).
Combined, these schools graduate approximately 3,000 students each year from degree
conferring programs (Air University, 2022; Courtesy, 2021; MCU, 2022; NDU, n.d.; NIU, 2022;
USNWC, n.d.), and contribute to the 40% of officers who possess an advanced degree (DoD,
2020). While civilian faculty populations within these organizations are lower than civilian
universities or service academies, their presence still provides opportunities for positive
intergroup contact. Additionally, these PME programs are not military officers’ sole
opportunities to engage with civilian academia.
Alternative Post-Graduate Education
In addition to professional education opportunities, many of the military branches offer
continuing post-graduate education. Military schools (NPS, n.d.-b; USAF, n.d.-b) and civilian
colleges and universities (USA, n.d.-a; USMC, 2012; USCGA, n.d.-b) support these programs.
All of these programs provide opportunities for positive intergroup contact between military
servicemembers and civilian faculty.

41
The USN and the USAF maintain their own post-graduate educational institutions for
servicemembers. NPS in Monterey, California, offers master’s and doctoral degree programs in a
variety of technical fields (NPS, n.d.-b). A review of faculty websites for all 13 departments
reveals a significant presence of civilian faculty members (NPS, n.d.-a). The Air Force Institute
of Technology (AFIT), in Ohio, provides post-graduate education opportunities to
servicemembers through their Graduate School of Engineering and Management (AFIT, n.d.-a;
USAF, n.d.-b). Similar to NPS, AFIT provides master’s and doctoral degrees in predominantly
technical and engineering fields. Unlike its USN counterpart, the USAF school has a more
balanced distribution of military and civilian faculty members among its six departments.
The USA offers an Advanced Civil Schooling program to enable soldiers seeking
postgraduate degrees (USA, n.d.-a). The USCG also provides support for qualified coast
guardsmen seeking advanced degrees (USCGA, n.d.-b). The Special Education Program in the
USMC provides master’s degrees in technical and non-technical fields (USMC, 2012) and its
Doctor of Philosophy Program provides terminal degrees in strategy or technical disciplines
(USMC, 2021). Each of these programs provide servicemembers with funding for tuition and
materials, but participants attend civilian institutions for higher education.
As these special education programs utilize civilian faculty members, they provide
opportunities for positive intergroup contact between those faculty members and the military
servicemember students. However, participation for these programs is through competitive
selection (AFIT, n.d.-b; NPS, n.d.-b; USA, n.d.-a; USMC, 2012; USCGA, n.d.-b). For example,
in 2021 the AFIT and NPS had less than 2,000 students total enrolled in post-graduate degree
programs (AFIT, 2022; NPS, 2022). Therefore, these contact opportunities are not as widely
available as those found in officer commissioning programs or officer’s PME.

42
Enlisted-to-Officer Accession Programs
Enlisted servicemembers are most likely to experience positive intergroup contact with
civilian faculty in one of the enlisted-to-officer accession programs. This probability exists
because active-duty enlisted personnel are not required to possess an academic degree (USAF,
n.d.-a; USA, n.d.-b; USCG, n.d.-b; USMC, n.d.-b; USN, n.d.; USSF, n.d.), and their PME
programs do not confer degrees or mandate a civilian faculty (Joint Staff, 2021). These accession
programs provide enlisted personnel the opportunity to complete pre-commissioning educational
requirements while still serving on active duty. Participants commission as active-duty officers
in their respective branch of the military upon completion of the program.
Each service conducts one or more dedicated enlisted-to-officer accession programs. The
USAF has the Airman Scholarship and Commissioning Program, Scholarships for Outstanding
Airmen and guardians to ROTC, and the Professional Officer Course-Early Release Program
(AFROTC n.d.-b, n.d.-c). Each of these programs require attendance at a college affiliated with
an AFROTC program. The Scholarships for Outstanding Airmen and guardians to ROTC
program also provides enlisted-to-officer accession for the USSF (AFROTC, n.d.-b) while the
early release program selects servicemembers with less than 2 years of college remaining
(AFROTC, n.d.-c).
The USA conducts enlisted-to-officer accession through their “green to gold” program
(USA, n.d.-d, para. 1). This program offers tuition to enlisted soldiers who require two or more
years of coursework to complete their undergraduate degree. Like the USAF, this USA
scholarship only applies to a college with an USA ROTC program. The USN Seaman to
Admiral-21 program is a combination of multiple enlisted-to-officer accession programs which
provides time and tuition for sailors pursuing an officer’s commission (NETC, n.d.-b). The

43
Marine Enlisted Commissioning Education Program provides career advancement to U.S.
marines without a baccalaureate degree (USMC, n.d.-c). Both Seaman to Admiral-21 and Marine
Enlisted Commissioning Education Program participants must complete their education at a
university associated with a Navy ROTC program. The USCG Pre-commissioning Program for
Enlisted Personnel operates similar to the previously discussed programs, except students may
attend any accredited university (USCG, n.d.-a).
All accession programs are conducted at civilian institutions for higher education.
Therefore, they offer the same opportunities for intergroup contact with civilian faculty as the
previously discussed ROTC program. Furthermore, upon receiving their commissions, these
servicemembers will have additional contact opportunities through the previously addressed
officer PME or special education programs.
After Military Service
As with identifying opportunities for positive intergroup contact before and during
military service, identifying these opportunities after military service is a daunting task. The
freedom of veterans and civilian faculty members to choose their living, working, and social
spaces creates an insurmountable number of potential contact solutions. Additionally, empirical
evidence addressing contact between veterans and other groups is lacking. Therefore,
acknowledging the tenet of intergroup contact theory which posited positive contact more often
occurs in occupational contact rather than in casual contact (Allport, 1979), this literature review
focused on where veterans are most likely to interact with civilian faculty members in a
professional setting: colleges and universities.
Approximately 200,000 servicemembers leave active duty each year (Department of
Labor, n.d.) and pursue a wide variety of agricultural, private, government, and entrepreneurial

44
opportunities (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2022). However, a 2019 survey by the Pew Research
Center (n = 1,284) indicated 41% of military veterans chose to register as either full-time or parttime students following their transition into the civilian community and joined the more than one
million student veterans in undergraduate and postgraduate education (Holian & Adam, 2020).
Detailed demographics of this 41%, such as prior service branch, rank, or level of pursued
academic degree, was not available.
This data demonstrated opportunities for positive intergroup contact between military and
civilian faculty members. Moreover, data indicated most contact opportunities occur within postsecondary educational institutions. These opportunities are important to identify because they are
the first of three selection processes which move groups from separate environments to a
common environment characterized by friendship (Pettigrew, 2008; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011).
Pettigrew’s research on intergroup contact between German nationals and immigrants
quantitively demonstrated this model (Pettigrew, 2008; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011), which
provides a logical explanation of how prejudice reduction cannot initiate without opportunities
for intergroup contact. Therefore, active-duty servicemembers or veterans and civilian faculty
members who choose to engage in all three selection processes of positive intergroup contact
may experience a more harmonious environment. Figure 5 illustrates this selection process. In
the first stage, individuals from two groups in separate environments may or may not have
opportunities for contact with each other. For the groups with opportunities for contact, members
will choose to engage or not engage in intergroup contact. For members who choose to engage in
positive intergroup contact, some will experience friendship and reduced prejudice while others
will not. This process informs the first element of this study’s conceptual framework.

45
Figure 5
Pettigrew’s Selection Processes (Modified)
Note. Modified from Pettigrew, T. F. (2008). Future directions for intergroup contact theory and research. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 32(3) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2007.12.002
Communities in separate environments
Civilian faculty member
Active-duty military / veteran
Civilian faculty member
Active-duty military / veteran
Opportunities for contact?
Civilian faculty member
Active-duty military / veteran
Civilian faculty member
Active-duty military / veteran
Civilian faculty member
Active-duty military / veteran
Positive intergroup contact?
Civilian faculty member
Active-duty military / veteran
Civilian faculty member
Active-duty military / veteran
Reduced prejudice?
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No

46
Making the Transition to Teaching
While individuals transitioning into academia after several years in a previous career field
face many challenges, various support structures enable their endeavors. These individuals,
described as “second-career academics” (LaRocco & Bruns, 2006, p. 628), become faculty
members after developing a substantive professional character (Dash, 2018; Herman et al.,
2021). Previous professions held by second-career academics include K-12 education and
leadership (Barrett & Brown, 2021; Crane et al., 2021; Kaiser & Bailey, 2022; LaRocco &
Bruns, 2006), corporate marketing (Bauer, 2022), health and medical services (Crane et al.,
2021; Herman et al., 2021; Thomas et al., 2020), and accounting (Showalter, 2018). Minimal
literature addressed military veterans joining academia (Grohowski & McClees, 2023; Olt,
2018), while Swaim (2017) spoke to active-duty military members transitioning to teaching roles
at a military service academy.
During their transitions, second-career academics experience many challenges. These
obstacles include culture and identity shifts (Barrett & Brown, 2014; Herman et al., 2021;
Grohowski & McClees, 2023; Kaiser & Bailey, 2022; LaRocco & Bruns, 2006; Thomas et al.,
2020), support structures oriented on virgin faculty members (Crane et al., 2009), time
management (Crane et al., 2009; Kaiser & Bailey, 2022; LaRocco & Bruns, 2006; Showalter,
2018), uncertain hiring practices (Heffernan, 2021), unfamiliar tasks (Herman et al., 2021;
Kaiser & Bailey, 2022; Showalter, 2018; Swaim, 2017), and low self-efficacy (Crane et al.,
2009; Kaiser & Bailey, 2022; LaRocco & Bruns, 2006). Military veterans transitioning to nonacademic civilian employment face similar challenges, specifically culture and identity shifts,
unfamiliar tasks, and low self-efficacy (Edelman, 2018; Gordon & Parham, 2019).

47
Research has also documented effective support structures which enable transitioning and
newly transitioned second-career academics to succeed in faculty roles. Some of these structures
involve early and successful teaching opportunities (Showalter, 2018; Thomas et al., 2020),
terminal degree attainment (Kaiser & Bailey, 2022; LaRocco & Bruns, 2006), and financial
assistance (Grohowski & McClees, 2023; Olt, 2018). However, the preponderance of the
literature emphasizes the furtherance offered through prior professional experience, guidance
from others, and supportive environments (Barrett & Brown, 2014; Bauer, 2022; Crane et al.,
2009; Grohowski & McClees, 2023; Heffernan, 2021; Herman et al., 2021; Kaiser & Bailey,
2022; LaRocco & Bruns, 2006; Olt, 2018; Showalter, 2018; Swaim, 2017; Thomas et al., 2020).
The following sections further discuss these groupings of support structures.
Prior Professional Experience
Second-career academics gain valuable professional experience during their initial
careers which provides two sources of transition support. The first is preparation for the
transition. This preparation includes volunteering for leadership positions (Thomas et al., 2021),
asking for additional responsibilities (Thomas et al., 2021), public speaking (Showalter, 2018),
and seeking out early chances to teach on topics within their profession (Crane et al., 2009,
Showalter, 2018). Additionally, time spent accruing prior professional experience provides time
for planning and reflective thought, which may increase the chances of a successful transition to
academia (Showalter, 2018).
The second source of transition support originating from prior professional experience is
the pragmatic, technical, doctrinal, or theoretical knowledge which supplement the second-career
academics’ desired educational field. Individuals transitioning to faculty roles have relied upon
former professional credos (Grohowski & McClees, 2023; Olt, 2018), language (Kaiser &

48
Bailey, 2022; Thomas et al., 2020), and technical skills (Barrett & Brown, 2014; Crane et al.,
2009; Herman et al., 2021; Olt, 2018; Swaim, 2017; Thomas et al., 2020) realized in previous
careers. Other second-career academics have used their previous professional experiences and
identities to establish credibility (Herman et al., 2021), provide real-world examples of
classroom concepts (Herman et al., 2021; Kaiser & Bailey, 2022; Showalter, 2018), or give
career advice (Bauer, 2022).
The skill sets developed in previous careers differ from those born from purely scholastic
upbringing (Kaiser & Bailey, 2022) and demonstrate the possible contributions of second-career
academics. Additionally, transitioning or newly transitioned faculty members may use their
previously learned social skills to build relationships with peers, other faculty members, or with
organizations outside of the university (Barrett & Brown, 2014; Bauer, 2022; Grohowski &
McClees, 2023). In turn, the benefits of these relationships become a second category of support
for second-career academics.
Guidance From Others
While the support from prior professional experience is an individual characteristic,
second-career academics are not independently successful. Instead, the guidance they receive
from others creates a second crucial collection of support structures. This assemblage includes
mentor relationships and networks (Barrett & Brown, 2014; Bauer, 2022; Crane et al., 2009;
Heffernan, 2021; Kaiser & Bailey, 2022; LaRocco & Bruns, 2006; Showalter, 2018; Swaim,
2017; Thomas et al., 2020).
The literature described mentorship among peers (Barrett & Brown, 2014; Bauer, 2022;
Crane et al., 2009; Kaiser & Bailey, 2022; LaRocco & Bruns, 2006; Thomas et al., 2020) and
more senior faculty members (Bauer, 2022; LaRocco & Bruns, 2006; Swaim, 2017). Some

49
second-career academics formed give-and-take “comentorship” relationships with other secondcareer academics to provide mutual support as they progressed together on similar transition
journeys (Barrett & Brown, 2014, p. 1; Crane et al., 2009; Thomas et al., 2020). In addition to
supporting the self-efficacy of second-career academics (Bauer, 2022; Kaiser & Bailey, 2022;
Swaim, 2017; Thomas et al., 2020), mentors serve as advocates (Showalter, 2018; Thomas et al.,
2020), help new faculty members learn their roles (Bauer, 2022; Kaiser & Bailey, 2022;
LaRocco & Bruns, 2006; Swaim, 2017; Thomas et al., 2020), and provide career advice (Thomas
et al., 2020).
In addition to individual mentor relationships, second-career academics often build
broader professional and academic networks. The literature portrayed these networks as
established internally within second-career academic’s educational institutions (Thomas et al.,
2020), or externally amongst other colleges or private institutions (Bauer, 2022; Kaiser & Bailey,
2022; LaRocco & Bruns, 2006; Thomas et al., 2020). These networks provided occupational
hiring or advancement opportunities (Heffernan, 2021; Showalter, 2018; Thomas et al., 2020)
and assist with research (Bauer, 2022; Crane et al., 2009; Heffernan, 2021; LaRocco & Bruns,
2006) or publication (Heffernan, 2021).
While the bulk of the literature addressed informal mentor and network relationships
formal arrangements do exist. Showalter (2018) and Thomas et al. (2020) described the benefits
of networking through professional associations. Grohowski and McClees (2023) captured
multiple examples of military veteran faculty members using guidance from others to enable
their transitions into academia. Furthermore, Kaiser and Bailey (2022) described the benefits of
formal mentorship programs, which themselves are indicative of a third grouping of transition
support structures.

50
Supportive Environments
The last category of transition support structures is external to the second-career
academic and consists of supportive environments. Herman et al. (2018) described these settings
as “care-full,” a theme reaffirmed in additional research (p. 103). Developing a supportive
environment is important as many second-career academics find scholastic climates to be less
team-oriented than their previous professional settings (Crane et al., 2009; Showalter, 2018), and
care-full environments are vital in assisting second-career academics’ shift from professional
identities to academic identities (Herman et al., 2021).
Some literature demonstrated the existence of supportive environments through the
presence of faculty development programs (Kaiser & Bailey, 2022; Showalter, 2018; Thomas et
al., 2020). Showalter (2018) specifically identified how faculty development centers and
workshops may provide second-career academics with the requisite knowledge to take on new
tasks such as using classroom technology or grading students’ assignments. Other colleges
demonstrated supportive environments through the conduct of a formal mentorship program to
ensure new faculty members received guidance from others (Kaiser & Bailey, 2022).
Additional research identified the lack of faculty development programs as organizational
gaps and called for the development of these programs (Crane et al., 2009; Swaim, 2017). Swaim
(2017) posited the use of the cognitive apprenticeship model to assist active-duty military
members in their transition to service academy faculty. Crane et al. (2009) warned against a onesize-fits-all approach to faculty development, and instead recommended the construction of
different faculty development curricula to address the unique needs of second-career academics.
In addition to helping second-career academics develop technical skills, supportive
environments often have intangible benefits. While researching second-career academics in the

51
medical field, Thomas et al. (2020) observed how supportive settings helped new faculty
members balance teaching and clinical duties, maintain a work-life balance through flexibility in
scheduling, and build a sense of pride. Swaim (2017) witnessed care-full environments facilitate
the acclimatization of new faculty members. The author also noted how senior faculty members
demonstrated trust of their junior colleagues, who resultantly felt freedom from fear of failure as
they learned their new roles.
Together, prior professional experience, guidance from others, and supportive
environments provide helpful structures to support second-career academics in their transition
from their professional environments to the world of academia. During this transition, new
faculty members do not completely shed their former professional identities (Herman et al.,
2021). For the context of this study, this retention is important as the professional identity of a
military veteran faculty member may influence their effects upon other communities within U.S.
institutions of higher education.
The Ripple Effects of Contact
The gap in literature addressing the perceptions and experiences of military veterans
transitioning into faculty roles, or the support structures used by veterans in their transition,
extends to exclude the perceptions and experiences of military veteran faculty members teaching
within U.S. institutions of higher education. This section of the literature review briefly discusses
potential intergroup contact opportunities between four communities found in academia: military
veteran faculty members, civilian faculty members, civilian students, and student veterans. This
section relies upon intergroup contact theory to hypothesize relationships between these four
communities and concludes with the final element of this study’s conceptual framework.

52
One piece of empirical research addressing the perceptions and experiences of military
veteran faculty members is Olt’s (2018) auto-ethnographic study. In his study, Olt self-reported
his experiences as a student veteran and a military veteran faculty member interacting with
civilian students, staff, and faculty. As a student, he admitted to selecting military veteran faculty
members as teachers or choosing civilian faculty members because of their similar demeanors to
military personas. As a professor, Olt reflected on how he and other veterans apply previous
mental models, such as rank structures, to the academic environment. The author identified
challenges with cultural adaptation, something which also confounds student veterans (Gonzalez
& Elliot, 2016; Hitt et al., 2015; Motl et al., 2022; Osborne, 2014) and second-career academics
(Barrett & Brown, 2014; Herman et al., 2021; Kaiser & Bailey, 2022; LaRocco & Bruns, 2006;
Thomas et al., 2020). Olt also acknowledged his continued abidance to a military code of
behavior, indicating close semantic distance to his military identity.
Miller’s (2015) study observed how academic advisors related to active-duty and military
veteran students at an MEI. The author noted the presence of PTSD among the student
population, a condition well documented amongst the student veteran population (Albright &
Bryan, 2018; Gonzalez & Elliot, 2016; Kintlze et al., 2018; Rudd et al., 2011). Furthermore, this
study highlighted the importance of empathy in academic advising, an emotion documented to be
an intergroup contact mediator (Allport, 1979; Boin et al., 2021; Brown & Hewstone, 2005;
Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011).
Olt (2018) and Miller (2015) illustrated the possible direct and supportive relationships
between military veteran faculty members and student veterans. While not empirical, the
Grohowski and McClees essay collection (2023) seemed to echo these illustrations. However,
beyond this examples lies a gap in the literature. Therefore, key concepts from the previously

53
discussed intergroup contact theory will conceptualize the possible contact and relationships
between military veteran faculty members, civilian faculty members, civilian students, and
student veterans in U.S. institutions of higher education.
For example, when military veteran faculty members proceed through intergroup
selection processes (Pettigrew, 2008; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011) with civilian faculty members
and students, all groups should experience reduced anxiety and increased apathy, resulting in
reduced prejudice between those communities. These effects may be generated by direct positive
intergroup contact or as the result of the primary transfer effect (Meleady et al., 2019; Pettigrew,
2021; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011). As a result of this reduced prejudice, civilian faculty members
and students then may demonstrate reduced prejudice towards student veterans because of the
secondary transfer effect (Meleady et al., 2019; Pettigrew, 2009, 2021; Pettigrew & Tropp,
2011).
Furthermore, as military veteran faculty members and student veterans possess a shared
identity, this commonality may magnify the effects of secondary transfer (Pettigrew & Tropp,
2011). The results of these processes and effects are improvement to the student veteran’s
environment through reduced prejudice from civilian communities within the university.
Additionally, military veteran faculty members may directly support student veterans as mentors,
role models, or advocates. Figure 6 depicts these possible relationships and effects, consolidating
evidence from the literature with expectations from Allport’s intergroup contact theory.

54
Figure 6
Relationships Within U.S. Institutions of Higher Education

55
A Conceptual Framework for Military Veteran Faculty Members
This study uses theoretical and conceptual frameworks to address the literature gap
surrounding the perceptions and experiences of military veteran faculty members. Merriam and
Tisdell (2016) defined a theoretical framework as a study’s empirically informed foundation.
Grant and Osanloo (2014) compared theoretical frameworks to blueprints for a house. All of
these authors agreed that sound research must be based in previously developed and accepted
theories. For this study, intergroup contact theory serves as the theoretical framework and
provides the key concepts of selection processes, contact conditions, contact mediators, contact
effects, salience, and transfer effects to the conceptual framework (Allport, 1979; Boin et al.,
2021; Brown & Hewstone, 2005; Meleady et al., 2019; Pettigrew, 1998, 2008, 2009, 2021;
Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011).
Complimentary to the theoretical framework is the conceptual framework. A conceptual
framework describes the organization of the study, to include the interrelation between the
concepts furnished by the theoretical framework and the problem of practice (Grant & Osanloo,
2014; Rocco & Plakhotnik, 2009). For this dissertation, the conceptual framework illustrates
three areas of focus to explore the perceptions and experiences of military veteran faculty
members. These focus areas mirror the discussions earlier in this chapter, namely pre-transition
opportunities for contact, making the transition to teaching, and the ripple effects of contact.
Figure 7 contains a graphical depiction of the initial conceptual framework.

56
Figure
7
Initial Conceptual Framework

57
The first element of the conceptual framework uses intergroup contact theory’s concepts
of selection processes, contact conditions, contact mediators, and contact effects to understand
the pre-transition perceptions and experiences of military veteran faculty members. These key
concepts will be explored in the context of pre-service, in-service, and post-service contact
opportunities. The aim is to identify catalysts which influence an active-duty or veteran
servicemember to become a military veteran faculty member. Additionally, respondents may
either confirm or refute this chapter’s previously identified opportunities for contact with civilian
faculty members.
The middle section of the conceptual framework focuses on identifying the transition
support structures used by military veteran faculty members. The purpose is to corroborate,
contest, or contribute to the existing research on transition support structures – prior professional
experience, guidance from others, and supporting environments. While this section is not
explicitly linked to intergroup contact theory, it does illustrate how a military veteran faculty
member can operationalize previous intergroup contact opportunities into additional future
intergroup contact opportunities and outcomes.
The final element of the conceptual framework applies the theoretical concepts of
selection processes, contact conditions, contact mediators, contact effects, salience, and transfer
effects to understand the perceptions and experiences of military veteran faculty members in
U.S. institutions of higher education. This section emphasizes the role of military veteran faculty
members in supporting student veterans. The conceptual framework depicts this role in two
manners. The first is direct support from military veteran faculty members to student veterans.
This assistance would include the cultural understanding and interventions discussed in the

58
background of the problem. The second is indirect support to student veterans, via civilian
students and faculty members, as a result of intergroup contact’s secondary transfer effect.
Summary
This literature review summarized existing knowledge regarding intergroup contact
theory, pre-transition opportunities for contact, transition support structures, and the ripple
effects of military veteran faculty members to synthesize the conceptual framework of this study.
The past 44 years of research on intergroup contact theory provided the key concepts of selection
processes, contact conditions, contact mediators, contact effects, salience, and transfer effects
(Allport, 1979; Brown & Hewstone, 2005; Pettigrew, 2008; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011).
Additionally, this analysis revealed intergroup contact theory’s widespread applicability to
various groups within the military (DoD, 2020; Schake & Mattis, 2016) and overcame the
paucity of literature directly addressing the theory within a military context.
Current institutional websites, processes, and artifacts demonstrated multiple
opportunities for contact between active-duty or veteran servicemembers and civilian faculty
members. These opportunities arise before, during, and after military service but generally focus
on the officer communities due to differences in educational requirements (USAF, n.d.-a; USA,
n.d.-b; USCG, n.d.-b; USMC, n.d.-b; USN, n.d.; USSF, n.d.). While evidence exists to illuminate
opportunities, there remains a gap in research addressing actual intergroup contact between the
military and academia.
Minimal research addressed successful adaptation strategies of military veteran faculty
members (Olt, 2018; Swaim, 2017). However, a review of the literature surrounding secondcareer academics (LaRocco & Bruns, 2006) highlighted similar challenges facing civilians and
veterans transitioning to new careers (Barrett & Brown, 2014; Edelman, 2018; Gordon &

59
Parham, 2019; Herman et al., 2021; Kaiser & Bailey, 2022; LaRocco & Bruns, 2006; Thomas et
al., 2020). Condensed, this research indicated prior professional experience, guidance from
others, and supportive environments are most helpful in supporting second-career academics in
their transitions.
There is a dearth of literature directly addressing the perceptions and experiences of
military veteran faculty members teaching in U.S. institutions of higher education. However, two
studies, Olt (2018) and Miller (2015), provided some data linking intergroup contact’s concepts
of empathy and salience to the context of this study. Grohowski and McClees (2023) provided a
direct lens into the experiences of military veteran faculty members. Additionally, the concepts
of primary and secondary transfer (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011) enable the illustration of
relationships and intergroup contact effects within the university setting.
Taken together, the research questions and literature review informed the construction of
a conceptual framework to explain the perceptions and experiences of military veterans
transitioning to academia as well as military veteran faculty members serving within academia.
This framework guides the sampling, instrumentation, and data collection within this study.
Chapter 3 contains a further discussion of this dissertation’s research methodology.

60
Chapter 3: Methodology
This chapter begins with a review of the study’s purpose and research questions. Next
follow discussions on the sample and population, instrumentation, and data collection design,
protocols, and justification. Subsequent sections illustrate data analysis methods, approaches
taken to ensure reliability, my positionality, and ethical considerations.
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this study is to explore the perceptions and experiences of military
veteran faculty members in U.S. institutions of higher education. By engaging with military
veterans who have successfully transitioned into academia, this research detected contact
opportunities which may catalyze transition, identified transition support structures, and learned
how military veteran faculty members interact with universities’ faculty and student populations.
Achieving a better understanding of the perceptions and experiences of military veteran faculty
members is crucial to minimizing economic losses and reducing student veteran health issues.
This dissertation answered previous research recommendations (Miller, 2015; Olt, 2018),
addressed the literature gap concerning military veteran faculty members, and contributed to the
research surrounding intergroup contact theory. Two research questions guided this study:
1. How do the perceptions and experiences of military veterans influence their transition
into academia?
2. What are the perceptions and experiences of military veteran faculty members
teaching in U.S. institutions of higher education?
Sample and Population
This study was a field-based qualitative study within U.S. institutions of higher
education. These institutions were privately and publicly funded. Neither student population,

61
faculty population, student diversity, faculty diversity, nor student residency impacted the
inclusion of a college or university. The only relevant factor was the presence of military veteran
faculty members, civilian faculty members, civilian students, and student veterans.
This research excluded service academies and MEIs because their student populations,
faculties, and missions contrast significantly with those of civilian colleges and universities. This
study also omitted two-year institutions. I assigned all colleges, universities, and schools
pseudonyms and described these organizations only in broad terms according to geography,
control, and the “basic classification description” provided by Carnegie Classification of
Institutes of Higher Education (2022, para. 1). Table 1 summarizes these terms.
Table 1
Summary of Basic Carnegie Classification Descriptions
Annual degrees conferred Classification Subsets
At least 20 research/scholarship
doctoral degrees
or
At least 30 professional practice
doctoral degrees
Doctoral universities Very high research activity
High research activity
Doctoral/Professional
Universities
At least 50 master’s degrees
and
Less than 20 doctoral degrees
Master’s colleges and
universities
Larger programs
Medium programs
Smaller programs
More than 50% of degrees are
baccalaureate or higher
Baccalaureate colleges Arts and sciences focus
Diverse fields
Note. Transposed from The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. (2023).
Basic Classification. American Council on Education.
https://carnegieclassifications.acenet.edu/carnegie-classification/classificationmethodology/basic-classification/
The target population for this dissertation were current or former military veteran faculty
members regardless of prior service branch, previously held rank, time in service, time in

62
academia, faculty position, or tenure status. Individuals must have met the Title 38 U.S. Code §
101 (2023) definition for military veteran, and must have been able to classify their position in
accordance with the categories contained within the IPEDS survey (n.d.). Chapter 1 contains full
definitions of military veteran and faculty member.
A mix of online social networking, word of mouth, and a review of publicly available
university faculty biographies and curricula vitae served to identify 12 participants for this
research. Additionally, a final question in the interview process facilitated participant
identification through Merriam and Tisdell’s concept of “snowball” sampling (2016, p. 98).
These methods ensured purposeful sampling and made certain the study’s participants were able
to answer the research questions (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Similar
to the names of organizations, pseudonyms replaced all research participant’s names to maintain
privacy and encourage open and frank dialogue.
Instrumentation
Prior to conducting interviews, participants completed a short Qualtrics survey to confirm
their eligibility for participation and collect demographics information. This demographics
information provided descriptive depth to the individuals participating in the study, granted
insight into potential probing questions, and illustrated the previously mentioned study limitation
regarding racial, gender, or other identities. This survey also eliminated the need to use interview
time to collect short, closed-answer questions.
Subjects in this study then participated in exploratory, qualitative, one-on-one, and semistructured Zoom interviews to answer the research questions. Interviews were appropriate to this
study because they enabled participants to share previous experiences and because the research
questions focused on individual perceptions (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). These authors also

63
noted how interviews grant individuals the privacy to freely speak of their perceptions or
perceived prejudices, which is why this study used interviews in lieu of focus groups. A semistructured methodology balanced researcher flexibility while addressing all key concepts and
research questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Pilot testing is important because it provides an external assessment of an instrument’s
coherence, soundness, flow, and time requirements (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). A military
veteran faculty member, who was not a part of the study’s sample, piloted the interview and
survey protocols. Colleagues, who were not part of the sample population, completed additional
pilot tests of the survey protocol. The emphasis of the interview pilot was the relationship
between the interview questions, research questions, and conceptual framework. The emphasis of
the survey pilot was clarity, time required for completion, and potential participant reactions.
Data Collection
I contacted potential interviewees via email or social media messaging. Once individuals
agreed to participate in the survey, they received a Qualtrics survey link via email. The survey
protocol consisted of 12 questions organized into an opening block, eligibility block, military
demographics block, academic demographics block, and contact information block. The first two
questions ascertained eligibility as both a military veteran and university faculty member and
required affirmative responses to proceed. The military and academic demographics blocks
provided background information that informed additional probing interview questions.
Appendix A contains the survey protocol.
Zoom interviews took between 35 and 78 minutes. The interview protocol consisted of 14
questions and addressed the conceptual framework's three areas of focus: pre-transition
opportunities for contact, making the transition to teaching, and the ripple effects of contact. All

64
questions were open-ended and matched with multiple probes to ensure rich responses.
Additionally, all interview questions linked to this study's research questions and key concepts
from the conceptual framework. Appendix B contains the interview protocol, including the
introductory statement, an explanation of informed consent, and a depiction of all conceptual
linkages.
Multiple methods of recording provided redundancy and maximum transcript accuracy.
Zoom’s organic recording capability provided an audio record, visual record, and textual
transcription of the interview. The smartphone audio transcription application Otter provided
additional audio records and transcriptions. During interviews, I took handwritten notes on a
Remarkable2 tablet. To develop the final transcripts used for data analysis, I re-watched the
video recording of the interviews and cross-referenced Zoom transcripts while making
corrections to the Otter generated transcripts.
Pseudonyms ensured the confidentiality of the participating individuals and their
organizations. These measures included paraphrasing of language which could identify a college,
university, or school and any distinct biographical or occupational traits attributable to a
participant. Pseudonyms and paraphrasing protected the military veteran faculty member
research subjects from harm resulting from expressing frustrations with organizational barriers or
negative opinions regarding their colleagues. Participants in the qualitative interview
acknowledged a statement containing Glesne’s (2011) three tenets of informed consent.
I used password protection for all electronic data to ensure the privacy of the study’s
participants and organizations. I saved all survey responses as portable document format files in
a password-protected folder on a password-protected desktop computer before deleting them
from the email mailbox. I then transferred all Zoom, Otter, and Remarkable2 files from their

65
original devices or online storage to the same password-protected folder. Following the
completion of this study, I disposed of all survey data and the pseudonym code key. I retained a
backup folder of all audio, visual, and textual recordings for future research.
Data Analysis
I coded qualitative data from the final transcripts using NVivo 20 Pro software. The
coding process began with Creswell and Creswell’s (2018) depiction of Tesch’s methodology.
The theoretical and conceptual frameworks’ key concepts, arising from the literature review,
provided 22 expected (a priori) codes. Analysis of and reflection on the collected qualitative data
illuminated an additional 10 surprising (posteriori) codes. As I identified posteriori codes, I
reviewed previously coded interviews for data supporting those new codes. Appendices C and D
contain tables enumerating the frequencies for a priori and posteriori codes. Reflective memo
writing assisted in sorting data into these while tempering researcher positionality (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018). Over time, the individual codes merged into six themes addressing this study’s
research questions and frameworks. Appendix E contains a tabular summary of all six themes,
which are described and discussed in Chapter 4.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Multiple concurrent methods ensured the fidelity of this study. Different terminology
defines the trustworthiness of quantitative or qualitative studies. While quantitative research uses
models of validity and reliability to describe fidelity, qualitative research more commonly refers
to the concepts of credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability (Lincoln & Guba,
1985; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This study used a variety of tactics to safeguard these four
elements of trustworthiness.

66
Sufficient data collection and thorough data analysis ensures the credibility, or
believability, of a study (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). The sample size for this study, 12 participants, supported sufficient data collection to
reach saturation. Purposeful exploration and discussion of interviewee counter-narratives bolster
this study’s credibility by highlighting those lived experiences which diverge from either the data
majority or my pre-conceptions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Additionally, Appendix F contains
the author’s a priori and posteriori codebook with all codes, descriptions, and examples of
confirmatory data.
Transferability describes the applicability of the research to a different context (Lincoln
& Guba, 1985; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The following vivid accounts of military veteran
faculty members’ perceptions and experiences should assist readers in establishing transferability
(Crewswell & Creswell, 2018; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Additionally, the generalizability of
intergroup contact theory supports the transferability of this study.
Lincoln and Guba (1985) defined a study’s dependability as the ability of others to
review the processes behind the research. Appendices A and B contain verbatim examples of this
study’s survey and interview protocols. Furthermore, the interview protocol in Appendix B
details the logic behind the research design and connects the theory, conceptual framework, and
data collection methodologies.
Lastly, confirmability refers to the availability of the research’s original data (Lincoln &
Guba, 1985). I maintained original copies of all data, to include transcripts, interview notes,
reflexive memos, audio recordings, and video recordings to facilitate future inquiries or
references to this study. I appropriately stored and protected all archived data. Code frequencies,

67
theme definitions, and the study’s codebook are also present in the appendices, further bolstering
the study’s confirmability.
The Researcher
As a current active-duty military officer and student veteran with desires to become a
military veteran faculty member, it was vital that I recognized my positionality and its impacts
on my research. Specifically, I restrained myself against assuming a subservient student to
professor relationship with my interviewees; I was willing to challenge their responses. I guarded
against service-related biases, be they either branch competitiveness, the notional superiority of
combat deployments, or the power dynamics of the military rank system. To do these, I
introduced myself by name and as a student, without mention of my military rank, position,
experiences, or ambitions.
I guarded against biases resulting from this positionality during data collection, analysis,
and presentation using the methods discussed by Creswell and Creswell (2018). During data
collection, I minimized sharing or commiserating with personal experiences to keep the focus on
the perceptions and experiences of the military veteran faculty members. I removed military
paraphernalia from my background and wore civilian clothes while conducting interviews. I
questioned the use of all acronyms instead of assuming I possessed the same cultural
understanding as the interviewee. The Creswell and Creswell recommendations to engage in
reflective memo writing aided data analysis. Lastly, in-line with further guidance from the
authors, this study presents confirming or contesting data in rich detail to maintain transparency.
Ethics
The USC institutional review board (IRB) ensured the ethical conduct of this study to
include the protection of all human subjects involved in the research. No email contact, survey

68
distribution, or interviews took place prior to receiving approval from the USC IRB. As the
research focused on input from individuals not acting as organizational representatives, no
universities or military services required any additional IRB process.
No conflict of interest was present between myself and the research subjects. There was
no shared military or academic chain of command between myself and the research subjects
which could contribute to power dynamics. Lastly, while I did not receive any immediate
financial benefit from this research, it is important to acknowledge how the development of a
professional network may lead to possible future employment opportunities.

69
Chapter 4: Findings
This chapter begins with a review of the study’s purpose, research questions, and a
synopsis of the study’s participants. The following sections then address the research questions
in sequential order. These segments follow an identical presentation of summarized findings and
then detailed discussions of the relationships between those discoveries, the literature review,
and the conceptual framework. Following these discussions, the study presents a foundational
theme and new phenomenological model. This chapter concludes with a refined conceptual
framework and a summary of all findings. All individual and institution names are pseudonyms.
A Review of the Study’s Purpose
The purpose of this study was to explore the perceptions and experiences of military
veteran faculty members in U.S. institutions of higher education. Using a three-part conceptual
framework built upon Allport’s intergroup contact theory, this study identified pre-transition
experiences and perceptions of military veterans and identified transition support structures.
Additionally, this research learned how military veteran faculty members interact with
universities’ faculty and student populations. Two research questions guided this study:
1. How do the perceptions and experiences of military veterans influence their transition
into academia?
2. What are the perceptions and experiences of military veteran faculty members
teaching in U.S. institutions of higher education?
Participants
Of the 29 survey responses received, 23 candidates met the initial screening criteria. Of
this cadre, 16 candidates initially committed to interviews. Of those committed, 13 individuals
participated in interviews for this study and 12 met all suitability criteria, to include teaching at

70
an eligible institution of higher education. While this study did not explicitly collect racial,
ethnic, or gender demographics, the data revealed research limitations discussed in Chapter 5.
For example, all of the participants presented as White, and 11 of the 12 participants presented as
men. The interviewees represented three of the six military branches and were a mix of officer
and enlisted ranks with varying fields of expertise and durations of military service ranging
between three to 29 years. Table 2 and Table 3 contain participant and institutional information.
Table 2
Participant Demographics
Name Position Description of military service Degree
Rank Branch Field Years of
service
Period
of service a
Carter Adj Prof O USAF Aviation 20 Gulf War II M
Cathy Lecturer E USAF Intelligence 5 Gulf War II M
Ferguson Asst Prof E USN Administration 5 Gulf War II D
Frank Asst Prof E USA Support 5 Gulf War I and II D
Henri Adj Prof O USAF Intelligence 28 Gulf War I and II D
Jake Professor E USN Intelligence 3 Vietnam D
Max Adj Prof E USA Intelligence 9 Gulf War I and II M
Michael Professor O USA Aviation 28 Gulf War I and II M
Ralph Lecturer O USAF Maintenance 22 Gulf War I and II M
Steve Instructor O USN Surface warfare 29 Gulf War I and II M
Thomas Adj Prof O USA Artillery 25 Gulf War I and II M
Virgil Professor O USA Military police 27 Other, Gulf War I
and II D
Note. O = officer; E = enlisted; M = master’s degree; D = doctorate.
a Periods of service defined by U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2022, April 21). Employment
situation of veterans – 2021 [Press release]. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/vet.pdf

71
Table 3
Institutional Demographics
Name School Region a Control b Carnegie classification
description b
Classification Subset
Carter Southern Public University South Public D VHRA
Cathy Bright Bay University West Public D HRA
Ferguson Dixon State University South Public D VHRA
Frank Prairie Hills University Midwest Public M Larger program
Henri University of Fountainhead South Public D VHRA
Jake Cedar Forrest University West Public D VHRA
Max Twin Pines University West Public D VHRA
Michael Founder’s University South Public D VHRA
Ralph Founder’s University South Public D VHRA
Steve Founder’s University South Public D VHRA
Thomas Gateway University West Private (nfp) D VHRA
Virgil Clear Valley University West Public D HRA
Note. nfp = not-for-profit; D = doctoral university; M = master’s university; VHRA = very high
research activity; HRA = high research activity.
a Geography Division. (n.d.). Census Regions and Divisions of the United States U.S.
Department of Commerce. https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/mapsdata/maps/reference/us_regdiv.pdf
b The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. (2023). Basic Classification.
American Council on Education. https://carnegieclassifications.acenet.edu/carnegieclassification/classification-methodology/basic-classification/

72
The 12 eligible military veteran faculty members interviewed for this study taught at 10
different U.S. institutions of higher education across three of the four census regions. All but one
school is located in the West or South regions, and this outlier is also the only school not meeting
the Carnegie classification as a doctoral university. Nine of the 10 universities represented in the
study are publicly controlled, and the remaining college is a private not-for-profit organization.
Research Question 1: Findings
Research Question 1 focused on learning how the perceptions and experiences of military
veterans influenced their transition into academia. The first eight queries of the interview
protocol (Appendix B) answered this research question and addressed the first two elements of
the conceptual framework. The participant’s responses coalesced into two contrasting themes
highlighting military veteran faculty members’ multiple pathways to the professoriate and the
typicality in their transition.
Multiple Pathways to the Professoriate
The studied military veteran faculty members were individuals with diverse pre-, peri-,
and post-military experiences encapsulating various contact opportunities, motivations, and
decisions to join the professoriate. While the interviewees shared some experiential
commonalities, each person’s journey in uniform was unique. For example, participants’ mutual
experiences included opportunities for positive intergroup contact with members of academia (n
= 12) and pre-transition teaching opportunities (n = 10). Lastly, in making their decisions to
become faculty, the study’s participants sorted themselves into two primary typologies: planned
professors and accidental professors.

73
A Myriad of Military Experiences
The twelve participants in this study represented three of the six military branches, were
previously enlisted personnel or commissioned officers, and served for varying periods across
the span of multiple military conflicts. Interviewees were veterans of the USA (n = 6), USN (n =
3), and USAF (n = 3). While not intentional, the field of study participants was almost evenly
divided between enlisted (n = 5) and commissioned officer (n = 7) ranks. The majority (n = 11)
of individuals served during Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, with the
outlier being a veteran of the Vietnam conflict. Of those 11, eight entered service before the
events of September 11, 2001. Of those eight, only one joined the military prior to Operation
Desert Storm. Subjects served as little as three and as many as 29 years in their respective
branches of the military, and seven retired from the military (years of service ≥ 20 years). The
following simple case comparison highlights the breadth of their military experiences.
Jake. Jake, the oldest subject, is a White man who voluntarily enlisted in the USN the
year college deferments for the Vietnam draft ended. He served for 3 years in the intelligence
field, and primarily worked on monitoring Russian radio transmissions while serving on multiple
ship and shore duty stations in Europe, Southeast Asia, and the Mediterranean. During the
interview, Jake described a tension between what he called today’s “overt patriotism” and his
feelings towards being “involved in something that I really was unproud of.”
Virgil. Virgil is a White man who commissioned as an officer in the USA after
graduating from a civilian college. He retired after 27 years as a “single track” military police
officer, eschewing a traditional secondary occupational specialty to instead specialize
exclusively in law enforcement. Virgil worked in military prisons, crime laboratories, and

74
investigative units, and repeatedly described choosing duty stations and assignments with
passion rather than pragmatism, placing personal satisfaction above career enhancement.
Steve. Steve is a White man who commissioned as an officer in the USN after graduating
from a civilian college. He retired after 29 years as a surface warfare officer and labeled his
career as “two parts.” The first half he described as either going to sea or preparing to go to sea,
alternating between ship and shore duties with an operational focus. Steve described the second
half as “focused on the joint staff” and working in roles at the theater and strategic levels, which
he found rewarding.
Henri. Henri is a White man who commissioned as an officer in the USAF after
graduating from a service academy. He retired after 28 years as an intelligence officer and
worked in information operations, cyberspace, and cybersecurity, alternating between billets in
the intelligence field and staff positions. Henri served at multiple duty stations within the United
States and overseas and spoke proudly of his work in developing the USAF’s policy on
cyberspace operations.
Michael. Michael is a White man who commissioned as an officer in the USA after
graduating from a service academy. A Blackhawk helicopter pilot, he retired after 28 years
having completed multiple operational and staff tours and accruing extensive combat experience.
While Michael described his career progression as mostly “normal” he detailed being extended
in each of his command tours to complete a deployment and noted with humor that these
extensions where “oddly enough ... not as exciting for my wife as you might think.”
Thomas. Thomas is a White man who commissioned as an officer in the USA after
graduating from a civilian college. He retired after 25 years as an artillery officer and held the
secondary specialty of foreign area officer in Europe. Thomas’s assignments included training

75
units, battalion command, and serving on the staff of the Secretary of Defense. During the
interview, he spoke indirectly of his combat experience, alluding instead to “violent activities.”
Ralph. Ralph is a White man who commissioned as an officer in the USAF after
graduating from a civilian college. He retired after 22 years, serving first as a ballistic missileer
and then as an aviation maintenance officer, a role he labeled as “running an industrial complex
that happened to produce airplane sorties.” As is typical, Ralph was stationed throughout the
United States and completed several overseas deployments.
Carter. Carter is a White man who commissioned as an officer in the USAF after
graduating from a civilian college. He retired after 20 years as an aviator, flying fixed wing
trainers as well as large cargo and aerial refueling aircraft. Throughout the interview, Carter
spoke passionately about aviation, particularly about instructing aviation training where he spent
“9 years at different levels” of flight school.
Max. Max is a White man who enlisted in the USA reserves while enrolled at a civilian
undergraduate institution. He worked in the field of psychological operations, now labeled
military information support operations, for nine years. Although a reservist, Max served in an
active capacity multiple times for deployments to Bosnia, Iraq, and Afghanistan. When asked
about the situation surrounding his final deployment, which required an extension to his
enlistment contract, Max described his decision with a wry smile and remarked “technically it
was completely voluntary.”
Frank. Frank is a White man who enlisted in the USA after graduating high school. He
specialized as a chaplain’s assistant, extending his original 4-year contract by 7 months to
complete an assignment outside the continental United States. Frank’s time in uniform is
somewhat unique within the sample as he did not experience a combat deployment. Furthermore,

76
he described a divergence between his occupational specialty and his actual role and stated “I
didn’t really do a lot of what my job description would have said I did. I did all the other
miscellaneous things.”
Cathy. Cathy is a White woman who enlisted in the USAF after graduating from a
civilian college. She served for 5 years, working within the intelligence field as a linguist. Cathy
described a fast-paced environment, moving quickly from language training to collection,
analyst, and briefing roles during a time when the operational tempo was “pretty crazy” and
where leadership balanced combat deployments against significant mental health challenges,
including suicide.
Ferguson. Ferguson is a White man who enlisted in the USN after dropping out of
civilian college following the loss of his mother. He spent 5 years in uniform as an
administrative clerk, which the USN refers to as a yeoman and Ferguson referred to as “a paper
pusher.” He did not deploy but spent his career on islands in the Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean
Sea.
The preceding case summaries illustrated a diversity of experience present within the
military veteran faculty member community. These experiences differ in terms of historical
cohort, length, combat experiences, and pre-service education levels. An examination of the pretransition contact opportunities available to the study’s participants showed additional variety.
Pre-Transition Contact Opportunities
Of the study’s 12 participants, all mentioned some form of contact with civilian faculty
members before entering the profession themselves. Of these, 10 described contact made premilitary service, 10 spoke to contact made during military service, and five detailed contact made
post-military service but pre-transition. Pre-military and post-military opportunities for contact

77
were exclusively within university settings as the subjects completed undergraduate education.
Therefore, the following section focuses on peri-military contact opportunities as they are more
likely to result in positive intergroup contact.
Table 4
Opportunities for Contact with Academia
Name Pre-military Peri-military Post-military
Carter Yes Yes No
Cathy Yes Yes Yes
Ferguson Yes No Yes
Frank No Yes Yes
Henri Yes Yes Not applicable
Jake Yes No Yes
Max No Yes Yes
Michael Yes Yes Not applicable
Ralph Yes Yes Not applicable
Steve Yes Yes Not applicable
Thomas Yes Yes No
Virgil Yes Yes Not applicable
Note. “Not applicable” designates instances where individuals transitioned to academia
immediately following their military careers.
One participant had contact with civilian faculty members solely while attending PME.
Two participants engaged in contact with civilian faculty members solely as a result of their
responsibilities or placement within a military unit. No participants worked with civilian faculty
members during enlisted-to-officer accession programs because none of this study’s participants
transitioned from the enlisted to officer ranks. However, five participants reported contact with

78
civilian faculty members while engaging in military-related educational pursuits and as a result
of their responsibilities or placement within a military unit. Two more participants had contact
with academia in the course of personal education pursuits undertook while on active-duty. Table
4 lists these opportunities.
In addition to attending an MEI for post-graduate education, Carter worked twice as a
representative on a small team with members of academia and industry to review papers in
advance of an Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference, where he
provided a “military voice.” Michael attended two MEIs while serving, meeting promotion
requirements and gaining valuable planning skills. Resultantly, he worked with “a myriad of
folks, some of whom had been professors” while assigned to a planning role in the USA. As a
lead planner, he described working with academics as “enormously helpful” in providing geopolitical systems understanding and outside perspectives as they collaborated in nation-building.
Steve attended MEIs as a USN officer and returned later as an active-duty military
instructor. As a student, he described experiences not unlike other study participants’
descriptions of working as a graduate teaching assistant, which due to the nature of the power
dynamic may not lend itself to the desired positive intergroup contact. However, as a professor in
the wargaming department he collaborated with civilian and military veteran faculty members
“on a regular basis” to write articles for a military journal and sat as a fellow for his college’s
historical research center.
To become a USA foreign area officer, Thomas attended a civilian university for rolespecific post-graduate education. He further engaged with civilian academia while working as a
foreign area officer, where he had “several opportunities to attend roundtables” with “prominent
academics” as they worked to develop foreign policy in response to the Global War on Terror.

79
Thomas also collaborated with academics while assigned to the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, where he described their association as “not a real useful relationship” due to security
classification constraints:
If anything, I came away with a little bit of a little sense of superiority relative to the
academics who ... I had worked with, who were nice people, men and women, but I just
did not find what they were doing to be very useful to what I was doing. And I knew that
I had a lot more information and insight that I really, in large part, could not share.
Virgil also described multiple touchpoints with academia over the course of his 27-year
military career. In addition to attending MEIs as a student and returning later to serve as a
military professor, he detailed previous engagements with members of a local university while
working as the head of investigations at a USA base. Specifically, he shared how “there was a
local university that had criminal justice programs. And so there was a lot of contact back and
forth between faculty members at that university and my organization.”
Lastly, Henri spoke about teaching as a military faculty member in an MEI, but also
about working for a professor when assigned to a staff role in the Pentagon. In that position, he
stated “pretty much everything we did was collaborative ... we prepared her for our engagements,
we did brainstorming and policy recommendation stuff together.” This relationship later matured
into one of mentorship as Henri’s supervisor began to push him towards higher educational
pursuits.
Max and Frank engaged with civilian faculty members while pursuing civilian education
during their time in uniform. While this counts as a contact opportunity, neither described the
relationships as collaborative. Instead, they spoke of standard student-teacher relationships, such
as attending class, going to office hours, or participating in independent study projects.

80
Two participants, while serving in uniform, had no contact opportunities with members
of academia. For Jake, this appeared to be a combination of a short enlistment and the classified
nature of his job within the USN. Ferguson described his military unit as “all military, any
civilians that were there, like, we can't even talk about type [of] thing.”
The 12 subjects interviewed for this study all had different experiences during their times
in uniform. As a result of their discrete career paths, opportunities for intergroup contact were or
were not available to each participant. However, despite this distinctiveness, some convergence
is present when examining these military veterans’ decisions to join academia.
Making the Decision
The military veteran faculty members within this study expressed one of two main
typologies for categorizing their decisions to join the professoriate. The first typology is the
planned professor and delineates the military veteran who built and executed a deliberate scheme
to transition into academia. The second typology is the accidental professor, who discovered
their role in academia while pursuing other ventures.
Planned Professors. Of the 12 study participants, seven meet the typology of the
planned professor: Carter, Ferguson, Frank, Henri, Michael, Steve, and Virgil. While they all
made a deliberate shift from the military into academia, they planned their transitions at different
points in their lives. Frank, perhaps the most quintessential of the planned professors from this
sample, described his process as:
I was probably 15 when I planned life out. My general plan was ... I'm gonna join the
Army. I'm gonna get out. I'm gonna teach K-12 for a while, and then eventually
somewhere down the road, I will transition from teaching high school.

81
Henri made his decision after only a few years in uniform, and remarked “I guess it
would be when I earned my master’s degree ... which was 3 years after graduating college, so I
knew that and then I’d be interested in going back into the classroom in some capacity.” Michael
“knew I wanted to go into education post military” early on as well, pursuing a master’s degree
in education while serving. Virgil identified “the teaching aspect that attracted me to the
professoriate,” while Carter described his plan to transition as more of a growing awareness than
“an overnight decision.”
Steve described his final set of orders, teaching at an MEI, as his “dream retirement job.”
When this job failed to materialize, he found a job at Founder’s University and realized “I would
have been in higher ed regardless, I think.” Ferguson made his shift towards academia after his
military career while preparing to apply for law school. During conversations with his graduate
professors, he realized “as a professor, you still have to grind to make tenure, but you grind on
projects you’re interested in, you know, not grind on billable hours. So that’s what turned me
towards the path of being a professor.”
Accidental Professors. Of the 12 study participants, five meet the typology of the
accidental professor: Cathy, Jake, Max, Thomas, and Ralph. These accidental professors found
their way into the profession while pursuing other goals. Thomas coined the label for this
typology when he stated, “I’m kind of an accidental professor.” He used this phrase to describe
his journey as an USA officer who taught at a service academy to a civilian who accepted a staff
role at Gateway University and then moved into a faculty role. At each of these points Thomas
found himself moving for reasons not related to the pursuit of a career in postsecondary
education, instead either seeking a specific geographic location prior to retirement or serving as a
replacement for a retiring faculty member.

82
Cathy happened upon the professoriate while pursuing her graduate degree, and initially
saw teaching as a “cool resume builder” before she discovered her love for instructing. Likewise,
Max, whose primary goal had been the pursuit of his terminal degree, initially sought out
teaching because “this [PhD] path also includes teaching.” Ralph “had no vision for going into
higher education” and instead planned to transition to a civilian career more in line with his
military aviation maintenance experience. However, as Ralph’s military retirement date
approached, he accepted a previous USAF colleague’s offer of employment at Founder’s
University.
Jake completed a doctoral degree in chemistry after his time in the USN, motivated by his
experiences with his shipmates on midwatch and to prove to himself “he wasn’t stupid.” On his
journey, Jake completed his terminal degree but remained on faculty as a senior scientist and
researcher in a post doc role for almost fifteen years. It was only when another university
attempted to hire Jake that Cedar Forrest University offered him a role as teaching faculty. In
Jake’s words, “up until that day, I never anticipated being a professor.”
The lived experiences of the military veteran faculty members in this study demonstrated
multiple pathways to the professoriate. Through their expressed military experiences and pretransition contact opportunities, they described a variety of journeys from the military to
academia. Converging into the two typologies of planned professor and accidental professor,
they further demonstrated different motivations for making their transitions. However, despite a
spectrum of experiences, opportunities, and motivations, a commonality of transition support
structures points to a contrasting similarity.

83
Typicality in the Transition
In contrast to the previous theme, the study’s participants used similar transition support
structures, perceived like barriers, and expressed comparable recommendations for transitioning
veterans. In other words, despite the many differences in their military experiences, there was
convergence in how these military veteran faculty members navigated their transition from the
military to academia. Additional trends emerged when the study’s participants revealed
perceived barriers to a successful transition and made recommendations for developing
additional support structures for prospective military veteran faculty members.
Using Support Structures
The military veteran faculty members interviewed for this study used a variety of
individual and organizational support structures during their transitions. In addition to the
transition to academia, the interviewees used these support structures in the conduct of their
faculty roles. These enablers included previously acquired knowledge, skills, and behaviors;
mentors; professional networks; faculty development tools; financial support; and quid pro quo
offerings through the military.
Prior Professional Experience. Ten of the interviewed military veteran faculty members
used their prior professional experience to aid their transition from the military to academia.
Additionally, many relied on technical, doctrinal, or theoretical knowledge gained from their
previous military occupational specialties. Carter, the former USAF pilot, relies directly on his
previous flight experience to teach crew resource management and “shepherd young people into
... the civilian industry” at Southern Public University. Henri remarked on the similarities
between his military and teaching roles at the University of Fountainhead. Cathy and Max
described weaving military language and history into their communications teachings at their

84
respective schools. Ralph, Steve, and Michael all spoke to bringing leadership and management
tools from their military careers into their roles at Founder’s University. Thomas specifically
cited his time as a foreign area officer as positively contributing to his faculty position at
Gateway University, pointing towards his language and culture training as “pretty instructive for
me in helping to put together curriculum for this program.” Henri remarked on the similarities
between his military and teaching roles. Virgil also began his faculty career in what he labeled a
“leadership studies program.”
In addition to knowledge and skills, behaviors developed during their time in the military
assisted these military veteran faculty members in making the switch and teaching in institutions
for higher education. Cathy described finding her way in academia and relying heavily on an
“adapt and overcome mentality” cultivated from her time in the Air Force. From serving in the
USA, Frank developed an “understanding [of] bureaucracy” and said, “recognizing that
[bureaucracy] is something that doesn’t change a drastic amount from military to academia is
super valuable.” Carter spoke to the benefits of initiative, saying “it’s almost like you have to be
a self-starter in the civilian world. But there’s no better self-starter than a military veteran.”
Ralph echoed these thoughts more succinctly when he stated, “we’re people of action.” One
outlier to these trends was Jake, the Vietnam veteran, who shared:
I didn't really gain any confidence from the military. I mean, I got nothing ... because in
our field, it was very compartmentalized ... so they made everything a need-to-know ...
and so nobody told anybody what they were doing. And so there was never an attaboy.
You know, not one time ... so there wasn't the gratification .... so, in terms of coming out
feeling ... like I had gained a lot of something? No.

85
In addition to relying on knowledge, skills, and attributes acquired prior to their transition
into academia, military veteran faculty members also used support from others. Study
participants reported varying degrees of reliance on personal and professional relationships.
These relationships aided respondents to either enter or succeed in a university setting.
Guidance From Others. Eleven of the interviewed military veteran faculty members
used guidance from others to assist their transition from the military to academia. Three subjects
described relying on mentors to aid in their career changes, four talked about using networks,
and four mentioned using mentors and networks. Michael was the lone outlier, mentioning
neither mentorship nor networks in his interview.
Cathy cited Dr. Good as a specific mentor and explained “that was like, super refreshing
my first year of graduate school, to have somebody who I felt understood the military and like,
respected the military.” Ferguson described a mentor-mentee relationship as “self-created ...
because I wanted to get better at teaching.” Frank also referred to a self-initiated relationship and
recalled that despite a lack of “formal” mentor assignment, he “did find someone partway
through who was a few doors down ... it was really, really super helpful.”
Henri’s boss from his time at the Pentagon grew from a supervisory to a mentor role. He
referenced her advocacy, stating “she encouraged me to go out and fight, you know, find money
[or] tuition assistance to get the degree.” Thomas also leaned heavily on a mentor who “helped
with lots of different methodologies like using cases and using an experiential learning center
that’s part of the school.”
The study’s subjects also relied on professional networks in making and sustaining their
transformations. Carter looked to an extensive professional network when seeking employment
at Southern Public University, and recalled:

86
When I transitioned to the entrepreneurship, and then started applying to [Southern
Public University], I was leveraging a network that included a CEO ... a state senator ...
and I was leveraging a previous graduate. So, I was trying to build that team so that when
I made the references, and you know ... fill out the application ... [Southern Public
University] knew who I was.
Likewise, Henri and Ralph called on networks within their schools to secure faculty roles.
Referring to his teaching position at the University of Fountainhead, Henri remarked “I knew a
lot of people in the department, and I just reached out to them and said - Hey, do you guys need
anyone teaching in these types of topics?” Ralph engaged directly with a university staffer who
“had been my boss twice in the Air Force” to land his job at Founder’s University. Once in the
realm of the professoriate, Cathy, Steve, and Frank all spoke to using peer connections to aid
them in their faculty roles.
Mentoring relationships and networks played an important role in these military veterans’
transitions to academia. For example, they supported finding and filling openings within
postsecondary education institutions. Additionally, guidance from others was instrumental in
making transitioning veterans feel welcome within academia, and in teaching them the new and
necessary knowledge to operate within this environment. Further enablement was present in
forms of organizational offerings.
Supportive Environments. Six of the interviewed military veteran faculty members
mentioned supportive environments aiding their transition from the military to academia. These
aids predominately consisted of institutionally sponsored faculty development centers and
programs. Jake referred how teaching faculty at Cedar Forrest University “kind of guide those of
us that don’t know what we’re doing.” Ferguson also discussed the support he received from

87
clinical professors at Dixon State University, in addition to structured support he benefited from
as a new professor, stating:
They started us with a little bit of a simpler class and gave us all materials for the class
too, right? It's kind of a lock-step class. So, it's like, here's the slides, here's the quizzes,
here's the exam, right? They gave us everything.
Cathy mentioned a similar orientation week for new faculty, and Max spoke to teaching
fellowships offered through his school’s teaching and learning center. Steve echoed his use of
institutional enablers such as “curriculum development ... or creative learning classes.” Henri
pointed to his positive experience as a military professor, and recalled “frankly, the [service
academy], I thought did the best job of onboarding new instructors.” When specifically asked
about support from the University of Fountainhead, he replied “not so much.”
With regards to supportive environments, Virgil is the outlier. In his interview, he
identified a potential shortfall to such efforts as they seem designed for “a newly minted PhD
from a doctoral program, you know, who is doing their first teaching.” He questioned the utility
of orientation programs for individuals with classroom experience, or those coming into
academia with significant previous professional experiences.
While less prevalent than prior professional experience or guidance from others,
supportive environments played an important role in some military veteran faculty member’s
transitions. Predominately, the organizationally sponsored enablers provided technical skills felt
necessary to succeed as a professor. To the contrary, almost no respondents described instances
where the educational institution’s efforts supported acculturation. However, where academia
may fall short, the military provides. Most of the study’s participants outlined additional support
structures, available from their time in uniform, which aided their transitions.

88
Additional Enablers. Seven of the interviewed military veteran faculty members
mentioned utilizing additional enablers to make their career changes. Most prevalent was some
form of financial aid, either the G.I. Bill, military tuition assistance, or the presence of a military
pension. Cathy, Ferguson, Frank, Henri, and Max all utilized the G.I. Bill to accrue academic
credentials either before or after separating from the military. Before leaving the USA, Frank
“used as much as I could with tuition assistance,” allowing him to accrue 210 credits. Henri
discovered that by linking his terminal degree to his job performance, he was able to apply
military unit training funds towards his tuition, which helped him supplement the G.I. Bill.
Finally, Ralph and Virgil pointed to their military pensions as important support structures,
allowing them to offset a new professor’s paycheck. Without his pension, Virgil said his new
occupation “wouldn’t have worked.”
Less prevalent, but still present, was the use of quid pro quo systems in which individuals
pursued terminal degrees while on active-duty in exchange for additional service obligation or a
utilization tour. Within this study, Henri and Virgil relied on these exchanges to gain academic
credentials. Henri described a “transactional scholarship” in which “the [service academy] sent
me to get my masters with the expectation that I would come back to the faculty at some point in
my career.” Virgil identified a similar experience with regards to his doctoral degree, and posited
“They sent me off for a fully funded program. And in exchange I owed the Army three days of
military service for every day I was in school.”
While useful to military veteran faculty members, it is important to note that the
additional enablers of financial aid or quid pro quo support are neither unique to the military or
designed to exclusively support transitions into academia. For example, scholarships, grants, and
loans are all additional forms of financial support. Furthermore, the attainment of graduate or

89
post-graduate degrees may support a military veteran’s transition into a number of career fields.
Regardless, the commonality of utilized support structures pointed towards a typicality in the
shift from military to institutions of higher education. Further alignment is observed when
evaluating perceived barriers to a successful transition.
Perceiving Barriers to Success
During the interviews, four participants perceived the lack of a terminal degree to be a
barrier to their successful transition into academia. When Carter’s initial attempts at employment
at Southern Public University were unsuccessful, he “was told through the grapevine” the
discriminator had been his lack of a doctorate. Ralph was quick to mention his perceived lack of
credentials when he volunteered “first off, I don’t have a PhD, my faculty rank is not professor.”
Once he began his academic career, his father warned him “you better get your PhD or ... you're
going to not progress at all at a university.” Steve lamented “that's frustrating sometimes because
I'm, well, you know, walk into a room with 30 years of military experience and I'm instantly not
credible because I don't have three letters after my name.” Lastly, Thomas shared his perception
of this prerequisite when he expressed:
We need to recognize that the path into academia is just as long as hard as the path, or
you know, it's distinct, but there's a long and deliberate path, I should say into academia,
and it involves going through and earning in most cases a PhD.
While the military veteran faculty members within this study answered specific questions
regarding utilized or recommended support structures, at no time did the interview protocol
query for barriers. Instead, this data presented itself organically in the conversations, and raises
questions ripe for future study. Additionally, and somewhat paradoxically, no individuals

90
addressed this perceived barrier when asked to describe an ideal support structure for
transitioning military veterans. Instead, the respondents focused elsewhere.
Recommendations for the Next Generation
When asked for recommendations towards building the ideal support structure for
military veterans wishing to transition into academia, the study’s participants spoke to both
technical and cultural considerations. Michael, relying on his previous aviation experience,
advocated for a “checklist” of items prospective military veteran faculty members could follow
to guide their transition preparation. Cathy suggested vicarious modeling for new professors,
which she described as “an in-person ... kind of a mock thing ... trying to show them ... like
demonstrations.”
Jake described a similar process, although focused on the institution’s processes rather
than actions in the classroom. He portrayed a practice where “assistant professors be included on
committees as an adjunct member ... somebody out there who's really not expected to contribute
much, but they can see how the process works.” Thomas opined those elements of “clinical or
tenure track[s]” and the academic “rank structure” would be important “aspects of the career
development program that I would put together.” Virgil summarized these concepts with his
own, recommending “immersion in the profession, in the profession of higher education, might
be really helpful.”
Counter to other participants, Max ruminated “I don’t know if I would have a different
program for veterans becoming teachers.” He clarified his belief in developmental and
supportive programs for new faculty members, but he was not convinced that the differences
between a military veteran and someone with “a sales background, or a finance background, or a

91
librarian background” are so unique as to require bespoke aids. Instead, his recommendations for
student-centric learning were agnostic to the faculty member’s previous professional experience.
Recommendations for building the technical knowledge associated with professorship
aligned with the respondent’s previous descriptions of supportive environments. Also, while
military veteran faculty members did not describe acculturation support within these
environments, several study participants recommended the development of support structures to
aid in cultural adaptation. Overall, expressed similarities in realized and desired support
structures point to an alignment in military veterans’ transition journeys that will inform future
recommendations for practice.
Research Question 1: Discussion
The data collected in pursuit of this study’s first research question illuminated the
contrasting themes of multiple pathways to the professoriate and typicality in the transition. As
discussed in Chapter 1 and Chapter 2, minimal research exists discussing how the perceptions
and experiences of military veteran faculty members influence their transition into academia.
However, these two themes do reflect elements of intergroup contact theory and previous data
attending to transition support structures among second-career academics.
In their multiple pathways to the professoriate, the study’s participants demonstrably
moved through the modified selection processes model, originally presented by Pettigrew
(2008), and depicted in Figure 5. Despite representing three branches of service, a variety in
lengths of service, and multiple generations, all interviewed military veteran faculty members
progressed from communities in separate environments to opportunities for contact. In doing so,
they postured themselves for positive intergroup contact and reduced prejudice. This theme
demonstrates that despite the great potential for experiential heterogeneity, or the contrasting

92
typologies of the planned professor and the accidental professor, existing theoretical models can
apply to the military veteran faculty member community as a whole.
Conversely, military veteran faculty members relied on support structures with similarity
to each other and the literature surrounding second-career academics, thus displaying typicality
in their transition. These support structures included prior professional experience in the form of
credos (Grohowski & McClees, 2023; Olt, 2018), language (Kaiser & Bailey, 2022; Thomas et
al., 2020), technical skills (Barrett & Brown, 2014; Crane et al., 2009; Herman et al., 2021; Olt,
2018; Swaim, 2017; Thomas et al., 2020), and experiences (Herman et al., 2021; Kaiser &
Bailey, 2022; Showalter, 2018). Military veteran faculty members also relied upon additional
and previously documented support such as guidance from others, specifically in the guise of
peer and faculty mentorship (Barrett & Brown, 2014; Bauer, 2022; Crane et al., 2009; Kaiser &
Bailey, 2022; LaRocco & Bruns, 2006; Swaim, 2017; Thomas et al., 2020) as well as internal
and external professional networks (Bauer, 2022; Kaiser & Bailey, 2022; LaRocco & Bruns,
2006; Thomas et al., 2020). While some literature previously discussed the posteriori coded
support structure of financial enablement (Grohowski & McClees, 2023; Olt, 2018), the
posteriori discovery of quid pro quo support was novel. Overall, this theme is vital for
organizations to understand that while the experiences of military veterans may be very different
from other second-career academics, their success in transitioning to academia does not rely
upon bespoke support structures.
Research Question 2: Findings
Research Question 2 focused on identifying the perceptions and experiences of military
veterans teaching in U.S. institutions of higher education. Questions six through 13 of the
interview protocol (Appendix B) answered this research question and addressed the third element

93
of the conceptual framework. From the participant’s responses emerged three complimentary and
nested themes. First, the military veteran faculty member is a cultural chameleon and kunga,
simultaneously blending into new cultures while moving in and out of previous cultures as
required. Second, through these totems military veteran faculty members serve as bridges
between dialectical tensions present in U.S. colleges and universities. Third, through this
bridging capacity military veteran faculty members find themselves doing well while doing
good.
Cultural Chameleons and Kungas
The military veteran faculty members interviewed for this study presented evidence of
their ability to blend with their surroundings as a chameleon while retaining the best of both of
their worlds as a kunga. Put otherwise, they acknowledged cultural differences between the
military and academic contexts, were adept at adapting to new cultures within these
environments, and demonstrated the ability to move back and forth between cultures as the
situation dictated. Through their lived experiences, this study’s participants demonstrated their
ability to blend into their new cultural environment, acting as Virgil labeled “organizational
chameleons.” Additionally, these professors retained elements of their military identity and
sometimes moved back into familiar modalities. By combining elements of their academic self
and military self, these military veteran faculty members took on the characteristics of the kunga,
a hybrid Mesopotamian battle-ass from the Bronze Age (Joosse, 2022).
Adapting to the Environment
Eight interviewees identified differences between military and academic cultures, and
seven of them further explicitly recognized the need to adjust to their new culture. As illustrated
with the brief subject biographies earlier in this chapter, all participants spent time in multiple

94
military units. Carter flew three different aircraft with three different missions during his time in
the USAF. In 3 years, Jake served in three separate theaters. Every single member of this study
experienced multiple military units, each with presumably their own unique organizational
cultures. Virgil displayed an understanding of the community as a whole when he summed up
their experiences with, “you know, we move a lot. We come into different types of organizations
with many different types of people. … If you weren’t going to adapt your style, you weren’t
going to be successful.”
Michael pointed out the need for military veterans with aspirations of academia to
demonstrate adaptability, and expressed “We'd have to educate military folks going ... we're not
going to change academically, right?” Thomas also posited the veteran’s role in adjusting to their
new environments, emphasizing “I think that we have to realize, as veterans that it's our job to
adapt to the world ... of the 98% who have never served. It's not their job to adapt to us.” Ralph
echoed these statements and spoke to cultural change as a key part of any veteran’s transition.
The interviewees also spoke of their success in becoming cultural chameleons. Cathy
affirmed “I just kept trying to get better and you know, I’m adapting.” Thomas pointed out how
he changed his physical appearance to blend, mentioning “I grow my hair a little long.” In
describing how colleagues perceived his acculturation, Virgil recalled “my first year there, that
was [Virgil] the military guy. By my fifth year that it was oh, yeah, [Virgil], that's right, you
were in the military, weren't ya?” Ralph alluded to his adaptation when recalling an interaction in
a working group. As he was discussing a university policy, he wanted group members to guard
against developing an unnecessarily coercive policy, and “I almost said ... [the] last thing you
want to do is put a gun to a student’s head.” Ralph recognized in a military context “we would
just say that and not even think about it” but that such language could be insensitive within the

95
academic community, or within an organization which had experienced gun violence, so he
rephrased his concern before speaking.
Two participants specifically recalled instances of military veterans who failed in their
transitions to academia, citing their inability to blend into their new surroundings. Virgil recalled
a university director who had been a retired USN admiral and was unsuccessful in adapting to
academia and referred to himself by his previous military rank:
“I said, drop the Admiral shit. It's working against you here buddy. You know, nobody
likes that. Everybody knows who you are, but everybody's on a first name basis, okay?
There's no trappings of authority and they don't like it here. And he just couldn't do it.”
Thomas also mentioned “a boss who was a retired Navy captain, who didn’t last a year because
he just couldn’t make that transition.”
The ability to act as a cultural chameleon appeared to be significant in contributing to the
success of military veterans moving into academia. Furthermore, it may be a byproduct of
military service, not a trait developed in spite of it. Interviewee’s re-telling of military veterans
who failed in their transition to academia added to the importance of acculturation. However, just
as the chameleon does not stop being a lizard when it blends into a new environment, so too did
military veteran faculty members retain elements of their former lives.
Moving Between Identities
Seven interviewees identified instances where their previous military identity served a
useful purpose within their new academic culture. Steve introduced the concept of moving
between identities in the study’s first interview, expressing “I’m probably a little bit of a hybrid.”
Jake emphasized the contributions of his veteran experiences not in his teaching, but elsewhere
in the university, and stated “my military experience did little for me in terms of my academic

96
career, but it plays a huge role here [supporting student veterans].” Michael often fell back on his
previous leadership roles to inform his interactions with student conduct issues but emphasized
understanding the processes and goals within the college. Cathy alluded to blending her current
civilian teaching role with her previous military leadership role when she spoke to thinking of
her students as “my team of Airmen.”
Ralph described relying on his previous military identity when discussing “performance
feedback or career counseling” with students in a leadership course. From his time teaching at an
MEI, Steve discussed successful hybrids, recalling:
A lot of the people I dealt with on a regular basis were that in that category, had been
military officers, retired, gone to school, PhD, and now were, you know, you could
consider them pure academics based on that body of work, but they were also military
officers.
Thomas spoke to assuming old learned behaviors when dealing with military veterans, and stated
he can “jump right back into that position of authority and put on my lieutenant colonel hat” if it
becomes necessary. Initially, Virgil emphasized the criticality of adaptation, and stated “I think
you know, you're there to do a specific job in a specific context.” However, he acquiesced to the
benefits of hybrid identities, and immediately followed-up with “and as long as your military
identity contributes to that, you know, fly the flag.”
Conversely, two respondents spoke to either hiding their military identity or contexts in
which their military identity was counterproductive. From his experiences in academia, Carter
minimizes his veteran identity. He said “I’ve learned after the last five years now, going into year
six, don’t share your military experience unless asked” in response to queries addressing
interactions with civilian faculty and students. Ferguson discussed how he finds socialization

97
with undergraduates difficult because the military rank structure and its regulations “instilled” an
“inherent power dynamic” and concerns over “fraternization.”
Throughout the data, the importance of blending into new environments while retaining
aspects of a previous military life was apparent. Military veteran faculty members showed
adaptation within their institutions of higher education, but ofttimes relied on their former culture
to address situations within their new contexts. Furthermore, their demonstrated ability to operate
within and between cultures may aid in addressing other conflicts.
Bridges Between Dialectical Tensions
Baxter and Scharp defined dialectical tensions as “a system of oppositions that logically
or functionally negate one another” (2015, p. 1). By virtue of their cultural chameleonizing and
hybridism, military veteran faculty members demonstrated the ability to move back and forth
between cultures and concepts normally held in opposition. Specifically, the participants
illuminated their community’s ability to operate within the two dialectical tensions of military
versus academia and thinkers versus doers.
Military vs Academia
Through their hybrid identities, some participants discussed how they bridged knowledge
and cultural gaps between the academic and veteran communities. Cathy recognized this
phenomenon, and posited “I felt like … military service and academia, like the two worlds just
really aren’t usually compatible” and “you don’t see a lot of crossover” between them. Frank
disagreed, citing commonalities in “hierarchies, bureaucracies, rank structures” and “pomp and
circumstance.” Other military veteran faculty members describe specific ways in which they
moved between the two worlds.

98
When a civilian professor expressed concerns over cadet hazing, Michael allayed him,
explaining “there is a pride in the military of how much it sucks, and the more it sucks the better
story it makes.” He recalled, “and he [the civilian professor] kind of smirked and he's like, that
actually makes sense.” Ralph also spoke to a civilian faculty’s sense of mystery surrounding the
military, saying “they’re generally curious” and “they want to observe, they want to ask
questions.” When queried by a civilian colleague, he bridged the gap, describing “an
opportunity” to explain the purpose behind aspects of military training:
There's a reason why we teach them their left and their right. There's a reason why we
shave their heads. There's a reason why they have to answer questions a certain way …
we want them to be stressed because when you have an in-flight emergency, we need you
cool, calm, and collected.
Michael and Ralph’s fellow professor, Steve, copied his colleagues in their interactions with
civilian faculty members. In his interview he remarked “I met with all the university advisors and
briefed them on what cadet life was like so they could understand why their cadets are asking
them silly questions.”
Military veterans teaching at other universities also shared stories of operating within the
military versus academia tension. Thomas recalled taking steps to ensure when he shared his
experiences, he did not diminish the experiences of his civilian colleagues:
If anything, I wind up downplaying what I did because it, I don't know, I'm not sure why
really. Maybe just because … most of the people, even on the faculty side … the
highlight of their life was earning that PhD in many cases.
Jake also took strides to ensure others recognized individuals could be both military and
academic. As a distinguished professor at Cedar Forrest University, he shared pictures of himself

99
at age 19 in boot camp “getting haircuts, getting shots,” adding “I have no problem asking you to
study a lot for this class … this is what I was doing when I was your age.”
While the data explicitly demonstrated the abilities of military veteran faculty members
to move between military and academic cultures, implicit evidence points to it as well. The
aforementioned support structure of prior professional experience also overlaps with this
dialectical tension, specifically in how the military veteran’s previous knowledge, skills, and
attributes positively contribute to their roles in postsecondary education. Furthermore, the
evidence of military veteran faculty members acting as hybrids should make obvious their ability
to bridge the dialectical tension between military and academia. Additional examination showed
their ability to address one other opposition.
Thinker vs Doer
Another dialectical tension is that of thinker versus doer, in which an unnegotiable
opposition is assumed to exist between the theoretician and the practitioner. One participant from
this study, Steve, specifically referred to this tension and said, “it was more academics versus
practitioners than ... military versus academics.” Here, the military veteran faculty members
predominately described themselves as practitioners while acknowledging their new roles within
academia. Moreover, they expressed a sense of superiority in their ability to move beyond theory
to real world application.
Michael discussed guest lecturing in a neuroscience class, where he recalled “they
understand that they're studying brain paths, and how people make decisions and whatnot. And
I'm trying to bring to them … here's the reality when somebody gets shot.” He went on to say,
“when I'm talking about combat, I'm not talking about something I read, it's something I've
experienced.” Carter self-described himself as a “doer,” and expanded on this identity saying

100
“and when you have that mindset, the last thing you want to do is be sitting in a classroom
teaching theory.” However, recognizing his new role as a thinker, he continued:
People are still teaching theory, study the book, read the book, take the test, get the grade.
…I'm approaching it from a standpoint of when people, when pupils, when young men
and women finish my class, I want them to have knowledge. I want them to have
application of that knowledge.
Virgil echoed these sentiments, stating “getting that mix of experience plus theory, that's a good
tool. I mean, it's a good thing to have in your hip pocket.” However, he admitted “academia itself
doesn't value [real world experience] as much as the students do.” Likewise, Henry stated
“[academics] don't value your operational experience anywhere near as much as they value your
publishing experience and research agenda.”
While interviewees spoke to the benefits of merging theory and practice, they were less
glowing in their descriptions of those who were never doers. Ralph recalled an incident where
his university bypassed a military veteran with geographically relevant operational experience
for someone “who's just gone from elementary school to high school, to college, to grad school
to doctorate program.” He laughed slightly, saying “One teaching job, and now it’s just as
[they’ve] been a student for their entire life.” Cathy questioned thinker’s priorities, stating “I
think they concern themselves with things that don't really matter. You know what I mean?
Because it's not like a life and death situation.” She elaborated, emphasizing that her perception
seemed especially true for “the ones that go just straight through school and straight into being a
doctor and don't have any like, other experience outside of that.” Michael remembered working
with academics in Afghanistan, where they “they didn't quite understand … the in-country
dynamics and our realities of war.” Thomas also mentioned similar difficulties in working with

101
members of academia to develop foreign policy, recalling that their contributions “didn't do jack
for me.”
While the data provided evidence of two dialectical tensions, drawing a distinct line in
between them is difficult. For example, the preponderance of respondents pointed towards their
military roles when speaking of themselves as doers. Additionally, some interviewees implicitly
referred to academic doers when they discussed teaching faculty or developmental workshops.
Regardless, the ability of military veteran faculty members to serve as a bridge between these
oppositions appears to stem from their previously mentioned acculturation and cultural
hybridism. By embracing the culture of the thinker and academic and retaining cultural elements
of the doer and military servicemember, they move back and forth within these dichotomies and
provide the best of both worlds. Furthermore, as they move between these worlds they succeed
while supporting their students.
Doing Well While Doing Good
Military veteran faculty members perceive academic careers as a continuation of service,
and experience satisfaction in their service. In serving, military veteran faculty members placed a
premium on helping their civilian students and student veterans. Some described their actions to
consist of some degree of personal sacrifice. The majority (n = 9) enjoyed their roles within
academia. Cathy drew a direct line between her military service and her role in academia:
Being able to like kind of, put aside myself in order to like kind of serve the students. It
made me feel really good in a way that like my service did. You know what I mean? It
was the first time I had felt that in a very long time.
Despite his self-perception as a “hard ass,” Carter described prioritizing student outcomes and
providing flexibility to his students. In his interview he remarked “grades are important. But the

102
timelines we put out on these papers, that's not the important part. The important part is that they
learn.” Thomas mirrored this contemplation and stated, “if you're teaching them then that's
probably what you focus on … the impact that you have on young people's lives.”
Military veteran faculty members also spoke to directly supporting student veterans with
scholastic support, assistance in navigating Veterans Affairs matters, or aiding them in
navigating their own acculturation. While remembering the difficulties she had in her own
transition from the armed forces, Cathy stated “if I can do anything that help another veteran get
through that, then I would.” Jake described supporting student veterans in their engagements
with faculty or the effects of PTSD, but realized “you now, I don't think any of them ever took
my class. They're ones that I met [at veteran functions].” Michael, Max, Virgil, Frank, and
Ferguson also provided similar support to student veterans, regardless of whether they were a
student in their class or not.
Multiple respondents saw parallels in service between their time in uniform and their
time in academia. Michael jokingly compared the military to academia, describing himself as
“genetically predisposed to poor-paying, thankless jobs.” Ralph confirmed this sense of sacrifice
and stated “we're going into [academia] not to make money. We're going to do it because we like
serving others. There's a servant leadership aspect of the military, there is servant leadership
aspect in higher ed, I think.” Max recalled a time where he put together a teaching and learning
seminar for free when the school budget precluded his reimbursement. In his journey as an
accidental professor, Thomas reminisced “I've done it because there was a need for somebody to
do it, and I just kind of fell into it.”
Finally, several of the interviewed military veteran faculty members expressed a sense of
satisfaction in their new environments and roles. Carter described his teaching career as a

103
“positive” experience, while Max portrayed himself as a good professor. Others spoke with
stronger emotions. Jake posited his existence as “fuller by having these [veteran] students in my
life.” Thomas was enthusiastic when he shared “I truly enjoy teaching” even if “I don’t enjoy
grading.” Speaking from the heart, Virgil volunteered he had “always loved teaching.” Cathy
summarized her colleagues’ feelings when she declared “it definitely satisfies me in a way that
you know, it makes me feel like I'm doing something good, you know, and so that's really what
made me want to continue to do it.”
Throughout the interviewees the participants expressed an emphasis on addressing
student’s needs. Predominately, this obligation did not appear to be more strongly focused on
student veterans as compared to civilian students, although some interviewees disclosed taking a
special interest in student veterans as a result of either their unique challenges or a sense of
shared culture. Regardless of whether or not military veteran faculty members gave special
attention to student veterans, the aspects of selfless service demonstrated by the study’s
participants imply a benefit to all communities they interact with.
Research Question 2: Discussion
The data collected to answer this study’s second research question coalesced into three
themes which build from one to another. First, the military veteran faculty members in this study
operated as cultural chameleons and kungas. Second, as a result of these adaptive and hybrid
identities, they were able to bridge the dialectical tension between academia and the military as
well as the tension between thinkers and doers. Third, while acting as these bridges, military
veteran faculty members did well while doing good, and expressed satisfaction in their service.
As discussed in Chapters 1 and 2, minimal literature addresses the perceptions and experiences

104
of military veteran faculty members teaching in U.S. institutions of higher education. However,
literature addressing second-career academics and student veterans do highlight some overlaps.
As cultural chameleons, military veteran faculty members overcame the acculturation
challenges faced by student veterans (Cate & Albright, 2015; Hitt et al., 2015; Lim et al., 2018;
Norman et al., 2015) and other transitioning military veterans (Edelman, 2018; Gordon &
Parham, 2019) to take on the characteristics of their new academic environments. As cultural
kungas, they mimicked second-career academics in retaining portions of their former
professional identities as described by Herman et al. (2021). As Carter remarked during his
interview, “you take the guy out of the military, but then you can't take the military out of the
guy.” Additionally, as hybrids, military veteran faculty members possess the common cultural
identity to increase secondary transfer effects of intergroup contact between civilian faculty
members and student veterans. Figure 4 illustrated this commonality. Overall, this theme depicts
the potential of the military veteran faculty member to succeed in academia and support student
veterans while doing so. However, military veterans should guard against blending in too well,
lest they lose the benefits of salience discussed later in this chapter.
While operating within U.S. institutions for higher education, military veteran faculty
members can operationalize their cross-acculturation to move between dialectical tensions. Study
participants recognized cultural differences between academia and the military, and identified
times when elements of both identities were contextually relevant. Additionally, the interviewees
used their prior professional experience and cultural hybridism to recognize the roles and value
of theory and practical application. This study’s literature review did not address the posteriori
theme of bridging dialectical tensions. However, the idea of military veteran faculty members
acting as bridges raises the possibility of this community addressing other dialectical tensions or

105
cultural gaps, such as the civ-mil gap (Carter et al., 2017). Cautiously, such designs must guard
against relying on stereotypes of veterans as incredible and selfless leaders (Lim et al., 2018;
Motl et al., 2022; Stanley et al., 2023). Additionally, an important consideration should be that
military veteran faculty members may not be the only bridges between these tensions. During his
interview, Michael remembered observing academics close the think-do gap in a military setting
and described it as “influential to see how they could take their academia and relate it to what we
were doing in terms of planning and stuff.”
Lastly, as military veteran faculty members bridged the cultures within U.S. institutions
for higher education, they demonstrated a sense of doing well while doing good. A sense of
service was present in the words and experiences of this study’s participants, and while it echoes
the thoughts of another military veteran faculty member (Olt, 2018) it also reinforces previously
documented stereotypes of the selfless veteran (Stanley et al., 2023). Furthermore, as recorded
by Miller (2015), the military veteran faculty members interviewed for this study demonstrated
empathy, an attribute key to the successful development of students. Ultimately, it is not merely
the participants’ presence within academia, but their successes in this context which may further
reduce the power and presence of negative veteran stereotypes and enhance veteran equity.
A Foundational Theme: The Ghost of Gordon Allport
This research did not establish a correlational or causal relationships between the
perceptions and experiences of military veteran faculty members and Allport’s intergroup
contact theory. However, elements of the theory and its contextual relevance are apparent
throughout the data. The following section highlights the existence of contact conditions and
mediators, the prejudice faced by military veteran faculty members, and the importance of
military veteran faculty member salience.

106
Contact Conditions and Mediators
As demonstrated in the preceding themes, military veteran faculty members experienced
multiple pre-, peri-, and post-military opportunities for contact with civilian academia.
Additional data gleaned from this interrogation illustrated the presence of intergroup contact
theory’s four contact conditions: equal status, collaboration, common goals, and institutional
support (Allport, 1979). Some examples of equal status were when Michael described “a level
field” when discussing the spectrum of authority between members of the military and the
professoriate. Thomas shared a similar sentiment, and Virgil described military and faculty
interactions as “a relationship of mutual respect ... equitable in terms of power dynamic.”
Examples of collaborating towards common goals were also present in the data. Frank
spoke to working with faculty in developing an online business curriculum, and Michael
favorably recalled “academia ... business ... folks in the government ... tied together” while
“trying to shape the future force.” While working in the Pentagon, Henri described facets of
teamwork with a professor, stating “pretty much everything we did was collaborative.” Two
other participants, Carter and Steve, worked on separate publication round tables to cooperate in
the round tables’ shared goal of refining and distributing academic papers.
Participants’ examples of events with obvious organizational sponsorship evidenced the
contact condition of institutional support. Max and Ralph mentioned curricula development
through “committees and working groups.” Frank described Prairie Hills University’s bi-annual
recognition of military veterans. Ralph relived his experiences on search committees seeking out
military veterans for university roles. Lastly, Thomas spoke to an institutionally sponsored
roundtable bringing together “prominent academics” with military “policy makers.”

107
In addition to the contact conditions, the two mediators of intergroup contact were
present in the data. These mediators, increased empathy and reduced anxiety (Allport, 1979),
contribute to the theory’s overall outcome of reduced prejudice. Carter expressed empathy by
recognizing “people need time to learn, and everybody learns differently.” When students called
her “caring” on her first feedback form, Cathy sounded rewarded and recalled a sense of relief.
Frank spoke of reduced anxiety amongst his colleagues as he demonstrated professional
competence and built trust with those colleagues. Ferguson and Max each implied reduced
anxiety between themselves and civilian faculty members when they developed “close
relationships,” and Michael echoed the need to build connections and avoid isolationism.
As previously discussed, no literature exists to correlate the findings of this study within
the context of military veteran faculty members. Notwithstanding, the data align with previous
research addressing the conditions and mediators of positive contact. However, it is important to
remember these conditions are best when applied synergistically (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011).
Additionally, their presence merely indicates the potential for reduced prejudice, not an actual
reduction in prejudice (Boin et al., 2021; Pettigrew, 2021). At best, this study demonstrates the
presence of an elemental form of positive intergroup contact for military veteran faculty
members in U.S. institutions for higher education, and therefore shows potential for intergroup
contact theory’s applicability to future research addressing this community and context.
The Presence of Prejudice
Of the study’s 12 participants, nine reported experiencing some level of prejudice as a
result of their veteran status. Of these nine, one described this prejudice as purely positive, five
described it as purely negative, and two provided examples of both valences. Positive prejudice
primarily presented as what Steve portrayed as “deference” by his colleagues. Ferguson and

108
Frank referred to general “positive” feelings, despite what Frank described as “faculty that are
definitely left leaning.” However, Frank did describe his “token” status as leading to feeling
“othered” and “outsider-ish.” Others experienced stronger negative reactions.
Jake expressed awareness of the “crazy” Vietnam veteran stereotype and had suspicions
of this stereotype disqualifying a candidate from employment. Cathy described individuals
learning of her veteran status and responding “oh, you’re a veteran. You’re, like, one of those.”
She expounded, saying academics considered military service “beneath them” and questioned
how she came to be in a graduate course. Others spoke to assumptions made of veterans with
PTSD, with Thomas specifically mentioning the assumptions that they are “violent” or
“incapable.” With frustration, Steve recalled individuals from his university’s diversity, equity,
and inclusion office referring to veterans as “baby-killers.” Echoing negative caricatures, Carter
spoke to assumptions of callousness, and voiced his perceptions as “that guy's a military guy.
You know, he's gonna bust your balls. He's gonna be tough ... He may be gruff. He may be
insulting.”
Another expressed prejudice was the stereotype of the military automaton. Michael
described his efforts in “disabusing folks of the notion that one person who's in command says
something [and] everybody moves like a robot to go execute.” Virgil experienced this as well
and spoke about dealing with faculty members’ assumptions “that military people are
regimented, that they're directive. You know, they're, they're not free thinkers.”
These experiences align with previously published literature addressing the U.S. military
veteran community. Several researchers have addressed deferential stereotypes of military
veterans (Lim et al., 2018; Motl et al., 2022; Stanley et al., 2023). The experiences of this study’s
participants also reinforce earlier research describing the negative preconceptions of military

109
veterans as mentally ill or violent (Hipes & Gemoets, 2019; Motl et al., 2022; Osborne, 2014).
Cathy’s description of suspected academic incompetence reflected findings from Osborne’s
research (2014). Lastly, Michael and Virgil’s lived experiences echoed earlier data addressing
poor assumptions of veteran initiative and self-sufficiency (Lim et al., 2018).
The Criticality of Salience
The visibility of military veteran faculty members can also be thought of as their
“salience” (Brown & Hewstone, 2005, p. 257) or “semantic distance” (Meleady et al., 2019, p.
432). The higher the veteran’s salience the more likely they are to be seen as a typical member of
the veteran community. The subjects within this study demonstrated their salience through their
physical appearances, language, or self-disclosure of identity or experiences. While the data
demonstrated military veteran faculty members’ visibility, the literature explains its criticality in
its relationship to prejudice.
Some of the study’s participants expressed their veteran salience through their physical
appearances or artifacts in the workplace. Steve, Ralph, and Michael, although retired, still wear
their military uniform while teaching and “stand out like a sore thumb.” Virgil described “two
things on my wall that would indicate that I have served.” In the bookshelf in Jake’s office was
an oval blue and yellow sticker with a helicopter and the words “Vietnam Veteran.” Ferguson
mentioned a sticker on his door which “says I’m, like, vet friendly” and a “Beach Volleyball
Tournament” trophy from his time at a Caribbean posting. Additional examples of salience
visible during the interview included paintings, lithographs, certificates, or curios depicting
aspects of a military career on display in the background of the interviewee.
Interviewees also displayed their veteran-ness in their vocabulary. Ralph discussed how
veterans “can throw profanity across the room and nobody thinks about it; it's just punctuation

110
for us,” an apt descriptor of the participants’ language. Respondents also relied heavily upon
acronyms to describe their military careers, even when they had forgotten the original meaning.
Thomas blended profanity and acronyms when he described himself as an “MFIC” [mother
fucker in charge]. Other examples of veteran salience were less salacious, and included common
military lexicon such as “attacking” to describe pursuing a goal, “bottom line up front” to
describe summarizing a concept, “sea stories” or “war stories” when recalling previous military
experiences, “hot” to describe active, or “hip pocket” to represent something as off-the-cuff.
The military veteran faculty members within this study also portrayed their salience
through self-disclosure to civilian faculty and students. When asked how much of his veteranness he shared with faculty, Jake revealed, “Well, I can be a dick, okay? Two days ago, was
March 29. It's National Vietnam Veterans Day. So, I sent an email to all my chemistry faculty,
50 of them, and it just said - you're welcome.” Cathy includes her military background during
“basic introductions.” Max self-disclosed with colleagues when discussing his research
addressing facets of the veteran community. Thomas deliberately shares his veteran identity with
his student veterans and stated, “it’s important for them to understand that [the program is] led
by a veteran.” Other examples of self-disclosure included military veteran faculty members
sharing their prior professional experiences in the classroom through “war stories.”
The importance of military veteran faculty members sharing their veteran-ness becomes
apparent when examined through the lens of intergroup contact theory. Within the theory is the
concept of primary transfer, depicted previously in Figure 2. This transfer is the generalization of
reduced prejudice to group members who did not participate in the original positive contact
situation (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011). Several researchers have equated higher levels of group

111
typicality, or salience, with an increased primary transfer effect (Boin et al., 2019; Brown &
Hewstone, 2005; Meleady et al., 2019; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011).
Figure 8
A Vicious Cycle of Inhibited Salience
When examining the lived experiences of military veteran faculty members, especially
the presence of prejudice and their willingness to share, an interesting concept comes to light. If
more of this community becomes as Carter, and learns not to disclose their veteran identity,
group member salience decreases. This loss of salience can reduce the effects of intergroup
contact, even in situations with all contact conditions present. As the effects of intergroup contact
diminish, prejudice will not be decreased. Resultantly, even more military veteran faculty
members may experience bias and stereotyping, in turn teaching them to hide their veteran
identity. Figure 8 depicts how this vicious cycle of inhibited salience may have negative and
compounding effects if left unchecked.

112
A Refined Conceptual Framework for Military Veteran Faculty Members
The first element of the refined conceptual framework, depicted in Figure 9, uses the
lived experiences of the interviewed military veteran faculty members to illustrate the existence
of pre-, peri-, and post-military contact opportunities between active-duty or veteran
servicemembers and civilian faculty members. In doing so, it reflects the selection processes
described by Pettigrew (2008) and illustrated earlier in Figure 5. Additionally, it illustrates and
labels the multiple pathways to the professoriate as the two typologies of the accidental professor
and the planned professor.
The middle section of the conceptual framework contains the transition support structures
used by military veteran faculty members who are either accidental or planned professors. In
addition to the initial estimate of support structures as recommended by the literature, this
element also captures the newly identified financial enablement and quid pro quo support
elements. As such, the middle section contains the theme of typicality in transition. Finally, this
portion illustrates how military veteran faculty members can operationalize previous contact
opportunities into future contact opportunities and outcomes.
The final element of the conceptual framework illustrates the interactions between
military veteran faculty members, civilian faculty members, civilian students, and student
veterans. It provides a graphical depiction of the adapted and hybridized nature of the military
veteran faculty member, displayed by merging colors and shapes. This section also shows the
direct support military veteran faculty members have provided to student veterans. Of significant
note, the relational arrows indicating reduced prejudice amongst the depicted communities
remains theoretical, and a topic for future research.

113
Figure 9
A Refined Conceptual Framework for Military Veteran Faculty Members
Note. Indications of reduced prejudice between communities within U.S. institutions of higher education remain theoretical.

114
Summary
From the rich data collected in 12 interviews emerged six themes describing the
perceptions and experiences of military veteran faculty members in their transitions to academia
and in their operating within U.S. institutions of higher education. From the themes came an
understanding that military veteran faculty members possess a wide variety of pre-academia
experiences and took different planned or spontaneous routes to teaching. Despite this variance,
the well documented and understood support structures available and efficacious to other secondcareer academics are still applicable.
After their transitions, military veteran faculty members still retain elements and
attributes of their uniformed identity. This dual identity enables them to move between opposing
relationships present in postsecondary education. As kungas, these military veterans continue to
succeed and serve their students well, blending within the culture of academia but calling upon
the knowledge, skill, and attributes they learned in the military when the situation demands it.
Lastly, the data demonstrated the applicability of intergroup contact theory to other
research addressing this community and the study’s context. It highlighted the importance of
institutional support to military veteran faculty members to prevent a vicious cycle of inhibited
salience and its resultant vortex of prejudice. Finally, all of this built towards a refined
conceptual framework explaining the perceptions and experiences of military veteran faculty
members in their transition to and teaching within U.S. institutions of higher education.

115
Chapter 5: Discussion
The purpose of this study was to explore the perceptions and experiences of military
veteran faculty members in U.S. institutions of higher education. By examining military veteran
faculty members who successfully transitioned into academia, this study also addresses the
insufficient research on military veteran faculty members, realizes previous recommendations for
research, and contributes to the body of research surrounding Allport’s intergroup contact theory.
This study used qualitative, semi-structured, one-on-one interviews. The interview
protocol looked for opportunities for contact between civilian faculty members and military
veterans, identified the support structures used by military veterans in their transition to
academia, and learned how military veteran faculty members engaged in contact with civilian
faculty members, civilian university students, and student veterans. Two research questions
guided the literature review, framework development, data collection, and ensuing data analysis:
1. How do the perceptions and experiences of military veterans influence their transition
into academia?
2. What are the perceptions and experiences of military veteran faculty members
teaching in U.S. institutions of higher education?
Summary of Findings
The lived experiences of the interviewed military veteran faculty members informed six
significant themes addressing the study’s research questions and refining the conceptual
framework. First, military veteran faculty members took multiple pathways to the professoriate.
They combined a myriad of military experiences encompassing pre-transition contact
opportunities. In making their decisions to join academia, they represented as either planned
professors or accidental professors.

116
Second, military veteran faculty members demonstrated typicality in their transition.
They utilized common support structures in making their change, to include prior professional
experience, guidance from others, supportive environments, financial enablement, and quid pro
quo support. They perceived similar barriers to success and expressed like recommendations to
support future transitioning military veterans.
Third, military veteran faculty members acted as cultural chameleons and kungas. They
adapted and moved between their academic and military identities as the context required.
Fourth, and by doing so, they demonstrated an ability to bridge two dialectical tensions: military
versus academia and thinker versus doer. Fifth, by occupying both sides of this tension, military
veteran faculty members did well while doing good. The community demonstrated success in
their service to their new occupation and communities.
Sixth, the sample and context of this study validated the concepts underlying Gordon
Allport’s intergroup contact theory (1979). Military veteran faculty members reported the
presence of prejudice against them, recalled contact situations reflective of positive intergroup
contact, and displayed behaviors aligned with positive intergroup contact mediators. Through
this data and its analysis came a refined conceptual framework and a new model illustrating the
vicious cycle of inhibited salience. Additionally, from these themes emerge four
recommendations for practice and three recommendations for further research.
Recommendations for Practice
The lived experiences of this study’s military veteran faculty members and previously
published empirical research point towards four recommendations for practice aimed towards
increasing contact opportunities within U.S. institutions for higher education. First, these
institutions should take steps to increase the visibility of military veteran faculty members within

117
academia. Second, universities should seek to incorporate military veteran faculty members into
academic committees. Third, academic institutions should educate civilian faculty on the
comparability of military veterans to other second-career academics. Fourth, multiple agencies
should encourage military veterans to pursue further service in academia.
Recommendation for Practice 1: Increased Visibility
Military veteran faculty members’ evidenced acculturation abilities may keep them
hidden from plain view. In other instances, some military veteran faculty members actively
choose not to reveal their previous military identity or experiences. Whatever the reason, this
camouflage can diminish their accessibility for student veterans seeking direct support and may
also contribute to a vicious cycle of inhibited salience.
Organizational cultivation of “care-full” environments helps to support second-career
academics in their professional-to-academic identity transitions (Herman, et al., 2018, p. 103;
Herman, et al., 2021). Additionally, organizational support of intergroup contact is potentially
the most important condition for enabling the reduction of prejudice between groups (Pettigrew
& Tropp, 2011). Examples of organizational support include established policies, rules, or
cultural norms (Allport, 1979). Lastly, the positive effects of intergroup contact are stronger if
group members demonstrate strong salience, or in other words are perceived as typical
representatives of their respective groups (Brown & Hewstone, 2005).
Universities can support the increased visibility and self-disclosure of military veteran
faculty members by providing signage on office doors, displaying a bulletin board of faculty
members who have served, and encouraging faculty members to self-identify as veterans in their
email signature blocks and online biographies. Doing so will demonstrate institutional support
and increase the identity salience of military veteran faculty members. Additionally, the IPEDS

118
survey should interrogate veteran status and capture this element within NCES data collections.
An expanded survey will in turn will make this community easier to find for civilian faculty and
students, thereby enabling positive intergroup contact, reducing prejudice, and support the
second recommendation for practice. Furthermore, expanding the visibility of military veteran
faculty members will help student veterans seek them out, as well as increase accessibility for
future researchers. Institutions of higher education have the responsibility to take actions to
facilitate the prime factor in positive intergroup contact; organizational support.
Recommendation for Practice 2: Committee Membership
As cultural chameleons and kungas, military veteran faculty members have demonstrated
their ability to adapt and thrive within their new academic environments. This acculturation,
along with their shown aptitude for bridging the dialectical tension between thinkers and doers,
make them key contributors to their organizations’ missions. Moreover, postsecondary education
institutions should consider the contributions of military veteran faculty members to their
administrative actions.
For reduced prejudice to occur, communities must have the opportunity for contact and
then must exploit the contact situations (Pettigrew, 2008). These contact situations are then
prime for positive intergroup contact if participants are of equal status, work collaboratively
towards a common goal, and have institutional support for their contact (Allport, 1979; Pettigrew
& Tropp, 2011). Furthermore, contact which occurs over time magnifies the effects of positive
intergroup contact (Pettigrew, 1998) and overcomes the initial intergroup conflict endorsed by
previous work (Baker, 1934; MacInnis & Page-Gould, 2015; Pettigrew, 1998; Sumner, 1906).
Universities should include military veteran faculty members on academic committees or
planning commissions. These administrative activities provide the necessary contact

119
opportunities, and naturally lend themselves to the previously discussed conditions for positive
intergroup contact. Even better are standing committees or long-term planning commissions to
provide multiple contact periods over time. University diversity, equity, and inclusion offices can
embrace Pascarella’s (2006) proposal for the expansion of the concept of diversity and support
this recommendation by adding veteran status to their list of cultures to consider when building
diverse teams to address university functions. The previous recommendation for practice
provides additional methods to support identification, and therefore inclusion, of military veteran
faculty members in these committees and commissions.
Recommendation for Practice 3: Education on Commonality
While military veteran faculty members utilize multiple pathways to the professoriate,
there is a distinct typicality in their transition, especially when compared to other second-career
academics. This typicality may be unknown by those already operating within academia and
could lead to misplaced devaluation of military veteran faculty members’ previous experiences.
Furthermore, university hiring committees may assume the needs of transitioning military
veterans are significantly different than other second-career academics. Lastly, university hiring
committees may allow other dynamics to influence their avoidance of hiring veterans.
Second-career academics rely on the whole of their previous professional experience, not
just on former technical knowledge and skills (Crane et al., 2009, Showalter, 2018; Thomas et
al., 2021). Lim et al. (2018) described veteran stereotyping as a product of deficient cultural
knowledge. Conversely, quantitative evaluations of contact situations have determined
“enhanced general knowledge” to have minimal effect but have shown common cultural identity
to magnify the secondary transfer effects of positive intergroup contact (Pettigrew & Tropp,
2011, p. 79). Additionally, Allport noted how “casual contact” may increase prejudgment (1979,

120
p. 263). These researchers demonstrated how interventions meant to build military cultural
competency (Gonzalez & Elliot, 2016; Lim et al., 2018; Military Family Research Institute,
2015; Motl et al., 2022; Norman et al., 2015; Osborne, 2014) may foster the undesirable
behaviors they are meant to diminish, further isolating military veteran faculty members.
Universities build awareness of identity commonality by creating educational
interventions for faculty and hiring committees. These efforts should invite military veteran
faculty members, as well as other second-career academics, to speak firsthand of their transition
journeys and applicable previous professional experiences. These interventions should not focus
on building the military cultural competency of faculty and hiring committees about military
culture. Instead, these interventions should highlight the similarities between the perceptions and
experiences of military veteran faculty members and other second-career academics. By
emphasizing the common cultural identity between these two groups, these interventions can lay
the groundwork for reduced prejudice. Beyond this awareness, hiring committees and the
individuals who comprise them must guard against the intimidation factor alluded to by Virgil
and Michael and the negative stereotypes addressed in the literature and experienced by the
study’s sample. University staff and faculty must recognize that military veterans who aspire to
academia are informed by, but not defined by, the conflict of their historical cohort.
Recommendation for Practice 4: Encourage the Transition
Military and academic organizations should directly encourage veterans to join academia.
As evidenced by the sample, almost half of the study participants were accidental professors (n =
5) despite a majority possessing teaching experience from their time in uniform (n = 10). This
suggests that some transitioning military veterans did not consider their military experiences
sufficient to make the professoriate a viable career option. Moreso, while the nature of their

121
specialties and roles require military members to embrace continuous education and act as lifelong learners, they may be unaware of the widespread satisfaction shared by military veteran
faculty members in academic service. Advertising the suitability and the potential rewards of
membership within the professoriate may increase military veterans’ presence as faculty in
higher education.
The mentors and networks already vital to second-career academics’ transitions to the
professoriate (Barrett & Brown, 2014; Bauer, 2022; Crane et al., 2009; Kaiser & Bailey, 2022;
LaRocco & Bruns, 2006; Swaim, 2017; Thomas et al., 2020) can provide further inspiration.
This encouragement can lead military veterans to choose to move into a common community
with academics, the first step in progressing through Pettigrew’s selection processes (2008) and
reducing prejudice while building friendships. Additionally, supporters may reassure military
veterans that they need not restrict themselves to teaching within their previous military
specialties. Instead, advocates can assure veterans’ of the relevancy of their other previous
professional experiences, such as leadership (Thomas et al., 2021), public speaking (Showalter,
2018), and applying theoretical concepts to real-world problems. (Herman et al., 2021; Kaiser &
Bailey, 2022; Showalter, 2018)
A variety of activities and organizations are already in place to encourage military
veterans to transition to academia. The DoD and its various military branches support a variety
of career change events for separating and retiring members. These opportunities include job
fairs and mandatory transition readiness seminars, where a brief message from a military veteran
faculty members may spark the notion of academic service. The Veterans Studies Association, in
partnership with the Journal of Veteran Studies, can support encouragement by publishing
literature related to the transition paths, work, and successes of military veteran faculty members.

122
Military veteran faculty members themselves should seek out protégés and return the mentorship
that enabled their own successful transitions. Leadership and faculty members within institutions
for higher education should also encourage their student veterans to consider a career within
academia, and can specifically target this audience through their respective veteran resource
centers. Building from the interviewees’ continued desire to serve, military veterans considering
the professoriate should repeatedly be told yes, you can; yes, you should.
Limitation and Delimitations
Limitations of this study included participants’ potential self-selection bias, my shared
military background with the interview respondents, and the study’s failure to account for
intersectional identities among the sample. Leedy et al. (2021) described limitations as criteria
which weaken findings or harm credibility. Military veteran faculty members who volunteered to
complete interviews may have demonstrated an openness which in turn contributed to their
transition success, thereby returning overly optimistic findings. Pettigrew (1998) previously
documented this phenomenon’s presence in intergroup contact theory studies. Additionally, due
to the largely homogenous composition of the U.S. military (U.S. Department of Defense [DoD],
2020), and therefore the military veteran population, this research confirmed previous concerns
and omitted important intersectional considerations resulting from racial, ethnic, gender,
sexuality, or other cultural identities (Grohowski & McClees, 2023; Shepherd et al., 2021).
This study did not address the perspectives and experiences of military veteran faculty
members who are teaching at military service academies, did not interrogate the viewpoints of
civilian faculty members, and did not examine the perspectives and experiences of military
veterans who have failed in their transition attempts. These delimitations enabled a narrow
research path and a focused dissertation free from intellectual distractions (Leedy et al., 2021).

123
This research omitted military service academies and military education institutions from
considerations as their faculty and student body eliminate volunteerism and self-selection from
any intergroup contact. Additionally, this study omitted the perceptions and experiences of
civilian faculty members due to the time constraints of this dissertation process. For this same
reason, this study did not consider military veterans who were unsuccessful in their transition to
academia.
Recommendations for Research
This study is only a starting point for research into military veteran faculty members.
While responding to previous recommendations for research (Miller, 2015; Olt, 2018; Pascarella,
2006) the emergent data and themes do not fully illustrate military veteran faculty members’
transition experiences, completely explain the effects of intergroup contact within the university
context, or generalize to other types of military veteran faculty members or educational settings.
Therefore, this study proposes three additional recommendations for research.
Recommendation for Research 1: Identify Obstacles
While this study confirmed military veteran faculty members’ utilization of four
previously documented transition support structures and identified an additional modality, it did
not truly interrogate transition obstacles. Some study participants shared perceptions of
insufficient academic credentialing or failed acculturation attempts, but these data are one-sided
and potentially inaccurate or biased. Therefore, additional research is required to more accurately
assess the obstacles which prevent a military veteran from transitioning to academia.
Recommended research questions for this topic include:
1. What obstacles do military veterans perceive or experience in their transition to
academia?

124
2. What are the perceptions and experiences of university hiring committees in declining
selection of military veterans?
Recommendation for Research 2: Deeper Exploration
This study confirmed pre-transition contact opportunities between active-duty or military
veterans and civilian academics, as well as post-transition interactions between military veteran
faculty members and civilian faculty members and students. Additionally, some evidence was
present illustrating the direct support military veteran faculty members provided to student
veterans. Lastly, the data confirmed the presence of prejudice against military veteran faculty
members within university settings. However, as a qualitative study this research is unable to
demonstrate relationships between pre-transition contact and veterans’ transition decisions or
between post-transition contact and prejudice. The following three suggested research questions
would enable deeper exploration of the first and third elements of this study’s conceptual
framework:
1. Does pre-transition contact between active-duty military or military veterans
influence their decisions to transition to academia?
2. How is prejudice towards military veteran faculty members affected by intergroup
contact between military veteran faculty members and other university groups?
3. How is prejudice towards student veterans affected by intergroup contact between
military veteran faculty members and other university groups?
Recommendation for Research 3: Broader Exploration
This tightly constricted study focused solely on military veteran faculty members
teaching at four-year universities. All subjects within this study were White, and only one
woman was present. Further research could examine all military veteran faculty member

125
communities more broadly, expanding its lenses to include educational institutions classified as
“associate’s colleges...special focus institutions...[or] tribal colleges and universities” (Carnegie,
2023, paras. 5-8). Lastly, no attempt was made to achieve a greater understanding of the overall
presence, distribution, or representation of military veterans within academia. The following four
recommended research questions address these gaps:
1. How do the perceptions and experiences of non-White or women military veterans
influence their transition into academia?
2. What are the perceptions and experiences of non-White or women military veteran
faculty members teaching in U.S. institutions of higher education?
3. What are the perceptions and experiences of military veteran faculty members
teaching in U.S. associate’s colleges?
4. How well are military veterans represented within faculty roles in U.S. institutions of
higher education?
Conclusion
Within U.S. institutions for higher education, student veteran communities face well
documented challenges that their civilian professors either do not understand or are ill-equipped
to handle. While well-intentioned interventions focus on building military cultural competency
within university faculties, such solutions neglect the community who already possess the
requisite cultural know-how: military veterans serving as university faculty members.
Qualitative and quantitative research fails to address this population in almost any sense,
enabling ignorance to their presence, perceptions, and experiences. This ignorance risks further
prejudice towards military veterans and isolates a community who wishes to continue their
service to others. While they easily camouflage themselves within academia, it is vital that the

126
professors who served in our nation’s Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, and
Space Force feel secure in sharing their veteran identities with their colleagues and students.
By sharing their identities, military veteran faculty members can serve as a vital bridge in
a time where the civ-mil divide appears to be growing. Their membership within postsecondary
institutions should be sought out because of their military experience, not in spite of it. Hiring of
military veteran faculty members must be construed as efforts in pursuit of diversity, even if such
pursuits raise fear within the academic community. As William F. Butler remarked in his tome
on Charles George Gordon, “the nation that will insist upon drawing a broad line of demarcation
between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its
thinking by cowards” (1898, p. 85). Both communities can learn from each other, grow from
each other, and military veteran faculty members are the path forward to reshaping the landscape
of how veterans are viewed and integrated into society.

127
References
Air Force Institute of Technology. (2022, February). By the numbers FY2021 [Fact sheet].
https://www.afit.edu/docs/FY2021_AFIT_Fact_Sheet_Final_17_JUN_22.pdf
Air Force Institute of Technology. (n.d.-a). Graduate school of engineering and management.
https://www.afit.edu/EN/
Air Force Institute of Technology. (n.d.-b). Graduate school of engineering and management:
Office of admissions. https://www.afit.edu/ADMISSIONS/
Air University. (2022, October 17). Air University. https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/About/
Albright, G., & Bryan, C. J. (2018). Are faculty and staff ready to support student veterans? A
survey of 14,763 faculty and staff at 20 colleges and universities. Kognito and the
University of Utah National Center for Veterans Studies.
https://www.insidehighered.com/sites/default/server_files/media/Student%20Veterans%2
0Study%20_%20KogUtah%20_%20JUNE18.pdf
Allport, G. W. (1979). The nature of prejudice: 25th anniversary edition. Perseus Book
Publishing.
Allport, G. W., & Kramer, B. M. (1946). Some roots of prejudice. The Journal of General
Psychology, 22(1), 9–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1946.9917293
Army War College. (n.d.). Faculty directory.
https://ssl.armywarcollege.edu/faculty/#/facultyCouncilList
Aronson, E., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., Blaney, N., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsaw classroom.
Sage.
Baker, P. E. (1934). Negro-White adjustment: An investigation and analysis of methods in the
interracial movement in the United States. Association Press.

128
Baldner, C., Viola, M., Capozza, D., Vezzali, L., Kruglanski, A. W., & Pierro, A. (2022). Direct
and imagined contact moderates the effect of need for cognitive closure on attitudes
towards women managers. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 32(6),
1061-1076. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2616
Barrett, J., & Brown, H. (2014). From learning comes meaning: Informal comentorship and the
second-career academic in education. Qualitative Report, 19(73), 1-15.
https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2014.1009
Barry, A. E., Jackson, Z. A., & Fullerton, A. B. (2021). An assessment of sense of belonging in
higher education among student service members/veterans. Journal of American College
Health, 69(3), 335-339. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2019.1676249
Bauer, S. (2020). The power of community in the business professional to academic transition.
Industry & Higher Education, 34(5), 298–302.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0950422219900113
Baxter L. A., & Scharp, K. M. (2015). Dialectical tensions in relationships. In C. R. Berger & M.
E. Roloff (Eds.), The International Encyclopedia of Interpersonal Communication (1st
ed., pp. 1-5). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118540190.wbeic0017
Bohrer, B., Maria-Therese, F., Schmidt, P., & Weick, S. (2019). Contacts between natives and
migrants in Germany: Perceptions of the native population since 1980 and an
examination of the contact hypotheses. Social Inclusion, 7(4), 320-331.
https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v7i4.2429

129
Boin, J., Mirjana, R., Graf, S., Neji, S., Spiegler, O., & Swart, H. (2021). The generalization of
intergroup contact effects: Emerging research, policy relevance, and future directions.
Journal of Social Issues, 77(1), 105-131. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12419
Bond, R. M., Shulman, H. C., & Gilbert, M. (2018). Does having a political discussion help or
hurt intergroup perceptions? Drawing guidance from social identity theory and the
contact hypothesis. International Journal of Communication, 12, 4332-4352.
Bowden, R. (2022, May 25). The breakdown: Stats on Air Force Academy’s class of 2022.
https://www.usafa.af.mil/News/News-Display/Article/3042768/the-breakdown-stats-onair-force-academys-class-of22/#:~:text=The%20Class%20of%202022%20includes,more%20than%20one%20racial
%20category.
Brophy, I. N. (1945). The luxury of anti-Negro prejudice. Public Opinion Quarterly, 9(4), 456–
466. https://doi.org/10.1086/265762
Brown, R., & Hewstone, M. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 255-343. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-
2601(05)37005-5
Butler, W. F. (1898). Charles George Gordon. MacMillan and Co., Limited.
Button, E. D. (2021). Military culture’s influence on enlistment advice for potential military
recruits: An application of Allport’s intergroup contact theory. Peace and Conflict:
Journal of Peace Psychology, 27(2), 314-318. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pac0000472
The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. (2023). Basic Classification.
American Council on Education. https://carnegieclassifications.acenet.edu/carnegieclassification/classification-methodology/basic-classification/

130
Cate, C. A., & Albright, G. (2015). Supporting student veterans: Utilizing game-based role-plays
with virtual humans to build military cultural competency and helping behaviors in
faculty and staff. Online Learning, 19(1), 48-63.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1061484.pdf
Carter, P., Schager, A., Kidder, K., & Fagan, M. (2017). Lost in translation: The civil-military
divide and veteran employment. Center for New American Security.
https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/lost-in-translation
Center for Naval Analyses. (n.d.). 2019 Population representation in the military services:
Fiscal Year 2019. Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness. https://www.cna.org/pop-rep/2019/index.html
Charitopoulou, E., & García-Manglano, J. (2018). Fear of small numbers? Immigrant population
size and electoral support for the populist radical right in Switzerland. Journal of Ethnic
and Migration Studies, 44(5), 849-869. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2017.1337505
Courtesy. (2021, June 12). Army chief of staff celebrates Army War College class of 2021:
graduate degree, JPME-II. U.S. Army.
https://www.army.mil/article/247463/army_chief_of_staff_celebrates_army_war_college
_class_of_2021_graduate_degree_jpme_ii
Crane, B., O’Hern, B., & Lawler, P. (2009). Second career professionals: Transitioning to the
faculty role. The Journal of Faculty Development, 23(1), 24–29.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage.

131
Dash, D.P. (2018). Recruiting and developing second-career academics in universities. In R.
Erwee, M. A. Harmes, M. K. Harmes, & P. A. Danaher (Eds.), Postgraduate Education
in Higher Education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0468-1_34-1
Dawson, B. L., & Cuevas, J. A. (2020). An assessment of intergroup dynamics at a multi-campus
university: One university, two cultures. Studies in Higher Education, 45(6), 1047-1063.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1628198
Dixon, J. A., Durrheim, K., & Tredoux, C. (2005). Beyond the optimal contact strategy: A reality
check for the contact hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60(7), 697-711.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.7.697
Edelman. (2018). 2018 veterans well-being survey.
https://www.edelman.com/sites/g/files/aatuss191/files/2018-10/2018-Edelman-VeteransWell-being-Survey.pdf
Fairlie, R. W., Hoffman, F., & Oreopoulos, P. (2014). A community college instructor like me:
Race and ethnicity interactions in the classroom. American Economic Review, 104(8),
2567-2591. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aeri.104.8.2567
Forbes, H. D. (1997). Ethnic conflict: Commerce, culture, and the contact hypothesis. Yale
University Press.
Foy, S. L., & Restifo, S. J. (2018). Reliably republican? Shifts in U.S. veterans’ political party
affiliation from 1974 to 2016. Sociological Spectrum, 38(3), 174-193.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02732173.2018.1469445
Garcia, J. (2022, May 25). Graduating cadets embrace new journey as officers. Pointer View.
https://www.army.mil/article/256984/graduating_cadets_embrace_new_journey_as_offic

132
ers#:~:text=The%201%2C014%20graduates%20relished%20their,%E2%80%9CClass%
20of%202022%2C%20congratulations!
Geography Division. (n.d.). Census Regions and Divisions of the United States U.S. Department
of Commerce. https://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/mapsdata/maps/reference/us_regdiv.pdf
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Pearson.
Goldberg, M. S., Cheng, K., Huff, N. M., Kimko, D. D., & Saizan, A. M. (2018). Geographic
diversity in military recruiting. Institute for Defense Analyses. https://www.ida.org/-
/media/feature/publications/g/ge/geographic-diversity-in-military-recruiting/d-9079.ashx
Gonzalez, C. A., & Elliot, M. (2016). Faculty attitudes and behaviors towards student veterans.
Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 29(1), 35-46.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1107471.pdf
Gordon, S. P., & Parham, J. N. (2019). Transitioning from the military to teaching: Two
veterans’ journeys through the entry year. The Educational Forum, 83(2), 140–159.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131725.2019.1561965
Grant, C., & Osanloo, A. (2014). Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical
framework in dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for your “house.”
Administrative Issues Journal: Education, Practice, and Research, 4(2), 12-26.
https://doi.org/10.5929/2014.4.2.9
Gravelle, T. B. (2021). Explaining Islamophobia in Australia: Partisanship, intergroup contact,
and local context. Australian Journal of Political Science, 56(2), 132-152.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2021.1884645

133
Grohowski, M., & McClees Jr., E. L. (2023) Veterans in academics: Veterans’ transition stories
[Manuscript submitted for publication]. University of Kentucky Press.
Halim, M. L. D., Martin, C. L., Andrews, N. C. Z., Zosuls, K. M., & Ruble, D. N. (2021).
Enjoying each other’s company: Gaining other-gender friendships promotes positive
gender attitudes among ethnically diverse children. Personality & Social Psychology
Bulletin, 47(12), 1635-1653. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220984407
Hässler, T., Uluğ, Ö. M., Kappmeier, M., & Travaglino, G. A. (2021). Intergroup contact and
social change: An integrated contact‐collective action model. Journal of Social Issues,
77(1), 217-241. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12412
Heffernan, T. (2021). Academic networks and career trajectory: “There's no career in academia
without networks. Higher Education Research and Development, 40(5), 981–994.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1799948
Herman, N., Bitzer, E., & Leibowitz, B. (2018). Professional learning for teaching at a researchintensive university: The need for a ‘care-full’ environment. South African Journal for
Higher Education, 32(6), 99–116. https://doi.org/10.20853/32-6-2647
Herman, N., Jose, M., Katiya, M., Kemp, M., le Roux, N., Swart-Jansen van Vuuren, C., & van
der Merwe, C. (2021). ‘Entering the world of academia is like starting a new life’: A trio
of reflections from health professionals joining academia as second-career academics.
The International Journal for Academic Development, 26(1), 69–81.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1360144X.2020.1784742
Hill, S., Giles, H., & Maguire, E. R. (2021). VOICES: A theory-driven intervention for
improving relationships between police and the public. Policing: An International

134
Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 44(5), 786-799.
https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-09-2020-0154
Hipes, C., & Gemoets, D. (2019). Stigmatization of war veterans with posttraumatic stress
disorder (PTSD): Stereotyping and social distance findings. American Sociological
Association, 9(2), 243-258. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156869318801889
Hitt, S., Sternberg, M., Wadsworth, S. M., Vaughan, J., Carlson, R., Dansie, E., & Mohrbacher,
M. (2015). The higher education landscape for US student service members and veterans
in Indiana. Higher Education: The International Journal of Higher Education Research,
70(3), 535-550. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9854-6
Holian, L., & Adam, T. (2020). Veterans’ education benefits: A profile of military students who
received federal veterans’ education benefits in 2015-2016. U.S. Department of
Education. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2020/2020488rev.pdf
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. (n.d.). 2021-22 survey materials: Human
resources for degree-granting institutions and related administrative offices that have 15
or more full-time staff and a tenure system. IPEDS 2021-22 Data Collection System.
https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/UseTheData/ArchivedSurveyMaterialPdf?year=2021&fileName
=package_1_43.pdf
Johnson, C. W., Johnson, R., Steigman, M., Odo, C., Vijayan, S., & Tata, D. V. (2016).
Appropriately targeting group interventions for academic success adopting the clinical
model and PAR profiles. Educational Researcher, 45(5), 312-323.
https://www.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16656939
Johnson, R., Johnson, C. W., Vijayan, S., Tata, D., & Villegas Jr., R. (2021). Diagnosis,
prescription, intervention, evaluation, advanced academic training, and college student

135
success. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 22(4), 699-
720. https://www.doi.org/10.1177/1521025118779803
Joint Staff. (2020, May 15). Officer professional military education policy: CJCSI 1800.01F.
https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/education/cjcsi_1800_01f.pdf?ver=2
020-05-15-102430-580
Joint Staff. (2021, November 1). Enlisted professional military education policy: CJCSI
1805.01C.
https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Library/Instructions/CJCSI%201805.01C.pdf?
ver=3HCEZBuMHaZSxXmfoUgNzA%3d%3d
Joose, T. (2022, January 14). Donkeylike creatures may be first known hybrid animal made by
humans. American Association for the Advancement of Sciences.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ada0149
Kaiser, F., & Bailey, J. (2022). Reinventing identity in transition from principal to professor: A
collaborative autoethnography. Cogent Education, 9(1), 1-14.
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2139119
Kamarck, K. N. (2019). Diversity, inclusion, and equal opportunity in the armed services:
Background and issues for Congress. Congressional Research Service.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44321/15
Kim, Y. K., & Lundberg, C. A. (2022). Barriers and benefits: Student-faculty interaction shaped
by institutional racism. College teaching.
https://www.doi/org/10.1080/87567555.2022.2124395

136
Kintzle, S., Barr, N., Corletto, G., & Castro, C. A. (2018). PTSD in US veterans: The role of
social connectedness, combat experience and discharge. Healthcare, 6(102).
https://www.doi.org/10.3390/healthcare6030102
Landis, D., Hope, R. O., & Day, H. R. (1984). Training for desegregation in the military. In M.B.
Brewer & N. Miller (Eds.), Groups in contact: The psychology of desegregation (pp.
257-278). Academic Press, Inc.
LaRocco, D. J., & Bruns, D. A. (2006). Practitioner to professor: An examination of secondcareer academics’ entry into academia. Education, 126(4), 626-639.
Leedy, P. D., Ormrod, J. E., & Johnson, L. R. (2021). Practical research: Planning and design.
Pearson.
Lemmer, G., & Wagner, U. (2015). Can we really reduce ethnic prejudice outside the lab? A
meta-analysis of direct and indirect contact interventions. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 45, 152-168. https://www.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2079
Lim, J. H., Interiano, C.G., Nowell, C. E., Tkacik, P. T., & Dahlberg, J. L. (2018). Invisible
cultural barriers: Contrasting perspectives on student veterans’ transition. Journal of
College Student Development, 59(3), 291-308.
https://www.doi.org/10.1353/csd.2018.0028
Lin, M.-C., Haridakis, P. M., & Zhang, Y. B. (2020). Political party identification and intergroup
attitudes: Exploring the effects of mediated and direct contact with the opposing party
during a presidential campaign. International Journal of Communication, 14, 2446-2463.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.

137
Lindsay, S. (2021). The transferability of out‐group contact: Does knowing a member of the
LGBT community improve feelings toward racial minorities, Muslims, and immigrants?
Social Science Quarterly, 102(2), 737-754. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12939
Llamas, J. D., Nguyen, K., & Tran, A. G. T. T. (2021). The case for greater faculty diversity:
Examining the educational impacts of student-faculty racial/ethnic match. Race Ethnicity
and Education, 24(3), 375-39. https://www.doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2019.1679759
MacInnis, C. C., & Page-Gould, E. (2015). How can intergroup interaction be bad if intergroup
contact is good? Exploring and reconciling an apparent paradox in the science of
intergroup relations. Psychological Science, 10(3), 307-327.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614568482
Marine Corps University. (n.d.). Find a faculty or staff member. https://www.usmcu.edu/AboutMCU/Faculty/Faculty-Directory/
Marine Corps University. (2022, September 8). Marine Corps University: AY22-23 Command
Brief [PowerPoint slides].
https://www.usmcu.edu/Portals/218/MCU%20CMD%20BRIEF%20AY22-
23%20%28Final_20220908%29main%20%28APPR%20FOR%20PUBREL%2030NOV
22%29.pptx
McKeown, S., & Dixon, J. (2017) The “contact hypothesis”: Critical reflections and future
directions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11(1), 1-13.
https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12295
Meadows, S. O., Engel, C. C., Collins, R. L., Beckman, R., Cefalu, M., Hawes-Dawson, J.,
Doyle, M., Kress, A. M., Sontag-Padilla, L., Ramchand, R., & Williams, K. M. (2018).

138
2015 department of defense health related behaviors survey (HRBS). Rand Corporation.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1695.html
Meleady, R., Crisp, R. J., Hodson, G., & Earle, M. (2019). On the generalization of intergroup
contact: A taxonomy of transfer effects. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
28(5), 430-435. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419848682
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Military Family Research Institute. (2015). Rallying the troops: Enlisting the support of faculty,
staff, and community veterans. https://www.mfri.purdue.edu/wpcontent/uploads/resources/landscape/MFRI_LandscapeInHigherEducation-Rallying.pdf
Miller, M. A. (2015). Academic advisors of military and student veterans: An ethnographic
study. The Journal of Continuing Education, 63(2), 98-108.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07377363.2015.1042997
Mittlestadt, J. (2018, June 20). Too much war, not enough college. U.S. Army War College.
https://warroom.armywarcollege.edu/articles/too-much-war-not-enough-college/
Motl, T. C., George, K. A., Gibson, B. J., Mollenhauer, M. A., & Birke, L. (2022). Stereotyping
of student service members and veterans on a university campus in the U.S. Military
Psychology, 34(5), 604-615. https://doi.org/10.1080/08995605.2021.2025012
National Center for Education Statistics. (2017). Number and percentage of teachers who are
military veterans, by control of school; sex, race/ethnicity, and age group of teacher;
region, and level of instruction: 2016 [Data set]. Institute of Education Sciences.
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d17/tables/dt17_209.27.asp

139
National Defense University. (n.d.). Graduation 2022. https://www.ndu.edu/Academics/NDUGraduation-2022/
National Defense University. (2022, May 6). National Defense University (NDU) annual report
for academic year 2020.
https://www.ndu.edu/Portals/59/Documents/Annual%20Reports/AY19-
20%20Annual%20Report.pdf?ver=5GxV7XAgxrnN41iIYlIL2Q%3d%3d
National Intelligence University. (n.d.). Explore degree programs. https://niu.edu/wp/academics/degrees/
National Intelligence University. (2022, August 20). NIU celebrates its 2022 graduates.
https://ni-u.edu/wp/niu-celebrates-its-2022-graduates/
Naval Education and Training Command. (n.d.-a). Navy ROTC schools.
https://www.netc.navy.mil/Commands/Naval-Service-TrainingCommand/NROTC/Navy-ROTC-Schools/#div3
Naval Education and Training Command. (n.d.-b). STA-21 program.
https://www.netc.navy.mil/Commands/Naval-Service-Training-Command/STA-21/STA21-Program/
Naval Postgraduate School. (2022, April 21). NPS Fact sheet [Fact sheet].
https://nps.edu/documents/10180/0/NPS+Fact+Sheet-2022+%281%29.pdf/37526c22-
219e-da41-022d-bdf55b7cf6d8?t=1651155444206
Naval Postgraduate School. (n.d.-a). Departments. https://nps.edu/departments
Naval Postgraduate School. (n.d.-b). Programs and degrees. https://nps.edu/degree-programs
Norman, S. B., Rosen, J., Himmerich, S., Myers, U. S., Davis, B., Browne, K. C., & Piland, N.
(2015). Student veteran perceptions of facilitators and barriers to achieving academic

140
goals. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 52(6), 701-712.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2015.01.0013
Olt, P.A. (2018). Through Army-colored glasses: A layered account of one veteran’s experiences
in higher education. The Qualitative Report, 23(10), 2403-2421.
https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol23/iss10/10/
Orchard, J., Williams, A., Christopher, K., McKeown, S., Jackson-Royal, R., Wright, K., Wan,
S. W.-Y., & Davids, N. (2021). Knowledge exchange, intergroup relations and “sharing
space”: A community of enquiry for the professional development of teachers of religion
and worldviews. British Journal of Religious Education, 43(3), 265-277.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01416200.2021.1898933
Osborne, N. J. (2014). Veteran ally: Practical strategies for closing the military-civilian gap on
campus. Innovative Higher Education, 39, 247-260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-013-
9274-z
Paluck, E. L., Green, S. A., & Green, D. P. (2019). The contact hypothesis re-evaluated.
Behavioural Public Policy, 3(2), 129-158. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2018.25
Paolini, S., White, F. A., Tropp, L. R., Turner, R. N., Page-Gould, E., Barlow, F. K., Gómez, Á.
(2021). Intergroup contact research in the 21st century: Lessons learned and forward
progress if we remain open. Journal of Social Issues, 77(1), 11-37.
https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12427
Parker, E. T., & Trolian, T. L. (2020). Student perceptions of the climate for diversity: The role
of student-faculty interactions. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 13(4), 333-344.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000132

141
Pascarella, E. T. (1980). Student-faculty informal contact and college outcomes. Review of
Educational Research, 50(4), 545-595. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654305000454
Pascarella, E. T. (2006). How college affects students: Ten directions for future research. Journal
of College Student Development, 47)5), 508-520. https://doi.org/ 10.1353/csd.2006.0060
Perry, E. L., Kulik, C. T., Mendelsohn, D. B., & Shon, D. (2022). Faculty gender diversity,
institutional performance, and the role of diversity climate. Research in Higher
Education, 63, 1204-1236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-022-09688-6
Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49(1), 65-85.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65
Pettigrew, T. F. (2008). Future directions for intergroup contact theory and research.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(3)
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2007.12.002
Pettigrew, T.F. (2009). Secondary transfer effect of contact: Do intergroup contact effects spread
to noncontacted outgroups? Social Psychology, 40(2), 55-65.
https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335.40.2.55
Pettigrew, T. F. (2021). Advancing intergroup contact theory: Comments on the issue’s articles.
Journal of Social Issues, 77(1), 258-273. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12423
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751-783.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2011). When groups meet: The dynamics of intergroup contact.
Psychology Press.

142
Pew Research Center. (2019). 2019 survey of veterans [Data set].
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/wpcontent/uploads/sites/3/2019/09/PSDT_10.09.19_veteransexperiences_topline.pdf
Putnam, R. D. (2007). E pluribus unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century: the
2006 Johan Skytte prize lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(2), 137-174.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x
Rani, N., & Samuel, A. A. (2019). Reducing transphobia: comparing the efficacy of direct and
indirect contact. Industrial and Commercial Training, 51(7/8), 445-460.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ICT-12-2018-0102
Reicher, S. (2007). Rethinking the paradigm of prejudice. South African School of Psychology,
37(4), 820-834. https://doi.org/10.1177/008124630703700410
Riordan, C. (1978). Equal-status interracial contact: A review and revision of the concept.
International Journal of Intercultural relations, 2(2), 161-185. https://doiorg.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1016/0147-1767(78)90004-4
Rocco, T. S., & Plakhotnik, M. S. (2009). Literature reviews, conceptual frameworks, and
theoretical frameworks: Terms, functions, and distinctions. Human Resource
Development Review, 8(1), 120-130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484309332617
Rudd, M. D., Goulding, J., & Bryan, C. J. (2011). Student veterans: A national survey exploring
psychological symptoms and suicide risk. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 42(5), 354-360. https://www.doi.org/10.1037/a0025164
Sargent, R. H., Caselli, A. J., Machia, L. V., & Newman, L. S. (2022). General perceptions of
police mediate relationships between police contact and anticipated police behavior in

143
imagined roadside encounters. Current Psychology, 41(7), 4350-4357.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00952-5
Schake, K., & Mattis, J. (Eds.). (2016). Warriors & citizens: American views of our military.
Hoover Institution Press.
Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs. (2022, October 26). Space Force news: Space Force to
partner with John Hopkins University SAIS for service-specific IDE, SDE. U.S. Space
Force. https://www.spaceforce.mil/News/Article/3199854/space-force-to-partner-withjohns-hopkins-university-sais-for-service-specific/
Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1988). The Robbers Cave
experiment: Intergroup conflict and cooperation. Wesleyan University Press.
Showalter, D. S. (2018). Reflections on the transition from practice to academia … the nuts and
bolts. Issues in Accounting Education, 33(3), 43–60. https://doi.org/10.2308/IACE-52144
St. Vil, C., & Boaitey, K. (2021). Bursting bubbles: Outcomes of an intergroup contact
intervention within the context of a community based violence intervention program.
Journal of Community Practice, 29(4), 391-404.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10705422.2021.1997851
Stanley, M. L., Shepherd, S., & Kay, A.C. (2023). Heroization and ironic funneling effect.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Attitudes and Social Cognition, 125(1),
29-56. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000336
Stauffer, A., Oliff, P., Foard, C., Thiess, R., Samms, B., Bryant, M., Pontari, L., Spence, E., &
Einsiedler, J. (2019). Two decades of change in federal and state higher education
funding: Recent trends across levels of government. Pew Charitable Trusts.

144
https://www.pewtrusts.org/-
/media/assets/2019/10/fedstatefundinghigheredu_chartbook_v1.pdf
Stone, C. B., Lengick-Hall, M., & Muldoon, J. (2018). Do stereotypes of veterans affect chances
of employment? The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 21(1), 1-33. 1–33.
https://doi.org/10.1037/mgr0000068
Stouffer, A. A., Schuman, E. A., DeVinney, L. C., Star, S. A., & Williams, Jr., R. M. (1949). The
American soldier: Adjustment during Army life (Vol. 1). Princeton University Press.
Sumner, W. G. (1906). Folkways: A study of the sociological importance of usages, manners,
customs, mores, and morals. Ginn and Company.
Swaim, T. T. (2017). Facilitating the transition from military instructor to academic educator:
Cognitive apprenticeship in teacher induction at the United States Air Force Academy.
Qualitative Report, 22(8), 2240–2265. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2017.2647
Thomas, L. R., Roesch, J., Haber, L., Rendón, P., Chang, A., Timm, C., Kalishman, S., &
O’Sullivan, P. (2020). Becoming outstanding educators: What do they say contributed to
success? Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practice, 25(3), 655–672.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-019-09949-7
Toloui-Wallace, J., Forbes, R., Thomson, O. P., & Setchell, J. (2022). When worlds collide:
Experiences of physiotherapists, chiropractors, and osteopaths working together.
Musculoskeletal Science & Practice, 60, 102564-102564.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msksp.2022.102564
Tondok, M. S., Suryanto, S., & Ardi, R. (2022). Intervention program to reduce religious
prejudice in education settings: A scoping review. Religions, 13(4), 299-316.
https://doi.org/10.3390/rel13040299

145
Trawalter, S., Richeson, J. A., & Shelton, J. N. (2009). Predicting behavior during interracial
interactions: A stress and coping approach. Personality and Social Psychology Review,
13(4), 243-268. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309345850
U.S. Air Force Academy. (n.d.-a). Academic faculty and staff directory.
https://www.usafa.edu/faculty-and-staff/?staff-page-no=1
U.S. Air Force Academy. (n.d.-b). Academy mission & vision.
https://www.usafa.edu/about/mission/#:~:text=To%20educate%2C%20train%20and%20i
nspire,for%20developing%20leaders%20of%20character.
U.S. Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps. (n.d.-a). College locator.
https://www.afrotc.com/college-locator/
U.S. Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps. (n.d.-b). Enlisted airman ASCP & SOAR.
https://www.afrotc.com/scholarships/enlisted/ascp-soar/
U.S. Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps. (n.d.-c). Enlisted POC-ERP & NECP.
https://www.afrotc.com/scholarships/enlisted/poc-erp_necp/
U.S. Air Force. (n.d.-a). Find more. Do more. Be more. https://www.airforce.com/careers
U.S. Air Force. (n.d.-b). Ongoing education: Pursue your greatness.
https://www.airforce.com/education/ongoing-education
U.S. Army. (n.d.-a). Advanced civil schooling (ACS).
https://myarmybenefits.us.army.mil/Benefit-Library/Federal-Benefits/Advanced-CivilSchooling-(ACS)?serv=122
U.S. Army. (n.d.-b). Careers and jobs. https://www.goarmy.com/careers-and-jobs.html
U.S. Army. (n.d.-c). Careers & jobs: Army ROTC. https://www.goarmy.com/careers-andjobs/find-your-path/army-officers/rotc/find-schools.AL-.results.html

146
U.S. Army. (n.d.-d). Careers & jobs: Green to gold scholarship option.
https://www.goarmy.com/careers-and-jobs/current-and-prior-service/advance-yourcareer/green-to-gold/green-to-gold-scholarship.html
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2022, April 21). Employment situation of veterans – 2021
[Press release]. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/vet.pdf
U.S. Coast Guard Academy. (2022, May 18). Coast Guard Academy graduates record number of
officers [News release].
https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDHSCG/bulletins/31866a9
U.S. Coast Guard Academy. (n.d.-a). Academic majors. https://uscga.edu/academics/majors/
U.S. Coast Guard Academy. (n.d.-b). Coast Guard graduate programs.
https://uscga.edu/careers/graduate-programs/
U.S. Coast Guard Academy. (n.d.-c). Mission.
https://uscga.edu/mission/#:~:text=The%20focus%20of%20the%20U.S.,the%20courage
%20to%20act%20accordingly.
U.S. Coast Guard. (n.d.-a). Commandant instruction M1100.2G: Coast Guard recruiting
manual. https://media.defense.gov/2021/Aug/18/2002833714/-1/-
1/0/CIM_1100_2G.PDF
U.S. Coast Guard. (n.d.-b). View coast guard job descriptions.
https://www.gocoastguard.com/active-duty-careers/enlisted-opportunities/view-jobdescriptions
U.S. Department of Defense. (2020). 2020 demographics: Profile of the military community.
https://download.militaryonesource.mil/12038/MOS/Reports/2020-demographicsreport.pdf

147
U.S. Department of Labor. (n.d.). Transition Assistance Program.
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/vets/programs/tap
U.S. Marine Corps (2012, December 1). Marine Corps order 1520.9G Ch 1: Special education
program.
https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publications/MCO%201520.9G%20W%20CH%201.p
df
U.S. Marine Corps. (2021, May 19). Marine Corps order 1524.2: Marine Corps doctor of
philosophy program (PHDP).
https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publications/MCO%201524.2.pdf?ver=FDzKeZRFJe
9_XpkmvI7NBQ%3d%3d
U.S. Marine Corps. (n.d.-a). MAGTFTC MCAGCC Twentynine Palms.
https://www.29palms.marines.mil/
U.S. Marine Corps. (n.d.-b). Military occupational specialty. https://www.marines.com/aboutthe-marine-corps/roles/military-occupational-specialty.html
U.S. Marine Corps. (n.d.-c). Naval & enlisted programs. https://www.mcrc.marines.mil/MarineOfficer/Officer-Naval-Enlisted-Applicants/
U.S. Marine Corps. (n.d.-d). Training and education command. https://www.tecom.marines.mil/
U.S. Merchant Marine Academy. (n.d.). About USMMA. https://www.usmma.edu/about
U.S. Military Academy. (n.d.-a). Center for faculty excellence: New instructor education.
https://www.westpoint.edu/centers-and-research/center-for-teaching-excellence/newinstructor/west-point-faculty
U.S. Military Academy. (n.d.-b). The U.S. military academy at West Point.
https://www.westpoint.edu/

148
U.S. Naval Academy. (n.d.-a). Academics. https://www.usna.edu/Academics/FacultyInformation/index.php
U.S. Naval Academy. (n.d.-b). Mission of USNA. https://www.usna.edu/About/mission.php
U.S. Naval Academy. (2022, May 25). Class of 2022 statistics [News release].
https://www.usna.edu/NewsCenter/_files/documents/UClass_of_2022_Stats.docx
U.S. Naval War College. (n.d.). About U.S. Naval War College. https://usnwc.edu/About
U.S. Naval War College. (2021, September 14). Fast facts [Fact sheet].
https://dnnlgwick.blob.core.windows.net/portals/0/GlobalContent/Fast%20Facts/fastfacts
%202021-0914b.pdf?sv=2017-04-
17&sr=b&si=DNNFileManagerPolicy&sig=8g5IuBKGyA86qXX5%2BxrFxdeqqj2UTh
Q6nFSrLXnBd%2FI%3D
U.S. Navy. (n.d.). Explore navy careers.
https://www.navy.com/careers?&activity=1228857&cid=ppc_gg_b_stan_general&gclid=
Cj0KCQiAvqGcBhCJARIsAFQ5ke4FBNKKs8KPSjtRWCwejypUvKFCvTK4iRoj_iB
WRFOC2TblJrtQ_4kaAqkKEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds
U.S. Space Force. (n.d.). Careers. https://www.spaceforce.com/militarycareers?gclid=Cj0KCQiA1ZGcBhCoARIsAGQ0kkrROSLmo8HTRizvQ6HjbmhtALFJS
dlP5FK70Musr0PBS8OnO0TbLm4aApcuEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds
Vaccaro, A. (2015). “It’s not one size fits all”: Diversity among student veterans. Journal of
Student Affairs Research and Practice, 52(4), 347-358.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2015.1067224
Vacchi, D. T. (2012). Considering student veterans on the twenty-first-century college campus.
About Campus, 17(2), 15-21. https://doi.org/10.1002/abc.21075

149
Veterans’ Benefits, 38 U.S.C. § 101. (2023).
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelimtitle38-section101&num=0&hl=false
Wang, C., Zhang, S., Gao, Y., & Li, B. (2022). Trust repair in the aftermath of conflict
occurrence in construction subcontracting: An intergroup contact perspective.
Construction Management and Economics, 40(10), 781-795.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2022.2110272
Whiteman, S. D., & Barry, A. E. (2011). A comparative analysis of student service
member/veteran and civilian student drinking motives. Journal of Student Affairs,
Research and Practice, 48(3), 297-313. https://doi.org/10.2202/1949-6605.6322
Wiley, S., Kirby, C. A., Richards, J., & Stockfisch, A. E. (2021). Positive contact with feminist
women as a predictor of feminist solidarity, gender privilege awareness, and public and
domestic support for gender equality in straight men. Sex Roles, 85(11-12), 688-706.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-021-01245-2
Williams, Jr., R. M. (1947). The reduction of intergroup tensions: A survey of research on
problems of ethnic, racial, and religious group relations. Social Science Research
Council.
Zingora, T., & Graf, S. (2019). Marry who you love: Intergroup contact with gay people and
another stigmatized minority is related to voting on the restriction of gay rights through
threat. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 49(11), 684-703.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12627

150
Appendix A: Survey Protocol
Opening
Greetings! My name is Jason Harris, and I am a doctoral candidate at the University of
Southern California. While there is a significant amount of research concerning the perceptions
and experiences of student veterans, did you know there is almost no quantitative or qualitative
research examining the perceptions and experiences of military veteran faculty members?
Learning this inspired me to tell the stories of military veteran faculty members, who I
believe can have positive and wide-reaching impacts on student veterans. Through either a
mutual contact, a social media profile, or your university faculty website, you have been
identified as a potential candidate for my study. This quick survey will confirm your eligibility to
participate in a follow-on interview. It consists of 12 questions but should take you no more than
3-4 minutes.
If you have any questions during or after the survey, you can reach me at
jasontha@usc.edu or at (760) 593-8331.
Eligibility
Are you a military veteran, defined as “a person who served in the active military, naval, air, or
space service, and who was discharged or released therefrom under conditions other than
dishonorable" (Title 38 U.S. Code § 101)?
• If you are currently active- duty, answer this question "No."
• If you were a member of a state militia, the Army National Guard, or the Air National
Guard, answer this question "No."

151
• If you were a reservist, but served on active duty outside of trainings, answer this
question "Yes." If you were a reservist but your active-duty time was only for
training, answer this question "No."
• Response options are “Yes” or “No.”
Are you, or have you been, employed as a professor, associate professor, assistant professor,
instructor, adjunct professor, or lecturer at a four-year university?
• Response options are “Yes” or “No.”
Military demographics
In which branch of the military did you serve?
• Response options are: United States Air Force, United States Army, United States
Coast Guard, United States Marine Corps, United States Navy, or United States Space
Force.
How many years did you serve?
• Please combine your active duty and reserve time, if applicable.
• Slider response. Slider ranges from 0 to 50 years.
What was your occupational specialty?
• List all that apply. Please use plain language, do not refer to ratings, NEC, AFSC, or
MOS codes.
• Essay text box response.
What was your highest rank achieved?
• Essay text box response.
If you were a commissioned officer, what was your commissioning source?

152
• Response options are: Service Academy (with essay text box to enter school’s name),
Reserve Officer Training Corps (with essay text box to enter school’s name), Other
(with essay text box to describe), or “I was not a commissioned officer.”
Academic demographics
What is your highest completed level of education?
• Response options are: Associate’s Degree, Baccalaureate Degree, Master’s Degree,
Doctoral Degree, or None of the above.
Which best describes your current or previous role in academia?
• Response options are: Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor, Instructor,
Adjunct Professor, Lecturer, or Other (with essay text box to describe).
What are the names of the universities where you currently teach (or previously taught)?
• Please note that your universities will be given pseudonyms in the study. Actual
names will not be used in the study.
• Essay text box response.
What are the names of the universities you attended as a student?
• Please note that your universities will be given pseudonyms in the study. Actual
names will not be used in the study.
• Essay text box response.
Contact Information
Thank you for participating in my survey! If you meet the requirements for this study, I
will contact you shortly to schedule a one-hour Zoom interview. This interview is the key
element of my study. If you choose to participate, please know that all responses will be

153
anonymous. Your name and the names of any organizations will be masked through the use of
pseudonyms. Real names will not be used in the study.
• If you would like to participate in the interview, please enter your name and current
contact information below.
• Form field response with name, phone number, and email address.
End of survey
Thank you for your time spent taking this survey. Your response has been recorded.

154
Appendix B: Interview Protocol
Introduction to the Interview (to be read):
Good morning/afternoon/good evening and thank you so much for gifting me your time
for this interview. My name is Jason Harris, and I am a student at the University of Southern
California. I am conducting this interview as part of my research in pursuit of a doctoral degree.
Before we begin, I want you to know that I will be taking notes throughout our
conversation, and that these notes will be immediately removed from my digital notepad and
stored in a password protected folder on my desktop computer. Additionally, I would appreciate
your permission to record this interview via Zoom and my smartphone to allow me to come back
to your responses and ensure that I capture your answers and input thoroughly and accurately.
These files will also be stored in a password protected folder on my desktop computer. Do I have
your permission to record our conversation? Thank you.
Now that we are recording, I briefly want to discuss informed consent. I know your
participation is voluntary, but if you are uncomfortable with a question or the subject matter you
have the right to withdraw at any time. Additionally, all individuals and schools will be assigned
a pseudonym in my study, and any especially identifying information – for example unit names –
will be omitted to protect you. Do you have any questions regarding informed consent?
The purpose of this study is to explore the perceptions and experiences of military
veteran faculty members, people like you, in U.S. institutions of higher education. I am
investigating military veterans who successfully transitioned to higher education faculty roles
and analyzing your perceptions and experiences through the lens of Allport’s intergroup contact
theory which states that positive contact can reduce prejudice between groups and generalize to
group members not part of the contact situation.

155
Table B1
Interview Questions
Interview questions Potential probes Research questions
Key concepts
Reflect back on your decision to
transition into university teaching.
If you can, pinpoint the exact
moment in time and space where
you decided to become a
professor. Now, please describe
for me why you chose to become
a university professor.
When did you make it?
Where were you in life?
Was there a particular catalyst?
RQ1
Selection processes
Contact effects
Transfer effects
Transition support
Describe your military career. What
were your significant duty
stations, billets, or operational
tours?
Which was most rewarding?
Do you think any particular
experience influenced you to
become a faculty member?
RQ1
Selections processes
Contact conditions
Salience
Prior to this deciding to transition to
academia, can you describe a time
where you ever worked with
civilian university professors
before?
Did you spend any time at a
schoolhouse?
Did you spend time in a unit
with civilian professors on
staff?
Did you attend professional
military education with
civilian professors on staff?
Did you attend post-graduate
education through a special
education program?
RQ1
Selections processes
Contact conditions
Contact mediators
Salience
How would you describe the nature
of the task, and both of your roles
in achieving it?
Was this task a shared goal?
Do you remember who
assigned this task to you?
RQ1
Contact conditions
During that time, how would you
describe the power dynamic
between yourself and the civilian
academic?
Who was supported and
supporting?
Who was in charge?
Did you ever avoid working
with civilian academics?
RQ1
Contact conditions
Salience
If I were to ask [you early in career]
what they think of civilian
university professors, how would
they have described them?
Have those perspectives
changed?
Why do you think so?
RQ1, RQ2
Selections processes
Contact mediators
Contact effects

156
Interview questions Potential probes Research questions
Key concepts
Let’s discuss the support structures
you used to become a faculty
member. Can you describe for me
the ones you used, and why?
Did you use financial,
organizational, emotional, or
educational support?
Any support structures not
used?
How would you place them in
an order of most important to
least important?
RQ1, RQ2
Selections processes
Salience
Transition support
Have you ever felt prejudiced or
biased against because of your
military background?
By whom?
Can you describe that
interaction?
RQ1, RQ2
Selection processes
Contact mediators
Contact effects
Imaging you could snap your
fingers and create a support
structure for military veterans
wanting to become university
professors. Describe that support
structure for me.
What obstacles would this
support structure help you
overcome?
Do you think this would assist
other military veterans?
RQ2
Support Structures
How much of your veteran
experience do you discuss/share
with your civilian colleagues?
How do you share this?
How do you think your
colleagues perceive your
veteran experience?
Do you fear sharing may invite
prejudice against you?
RQ2
Selections processes
Contact mediators
Contact effects
Salience
Can you describe a time where your
civilian colleagues have asked for
your help in connecting with
student veterans?
How do you think your
colleagues perceive student
veterans?
RQ2
Selections processes
Contact conditions
Contact effects
Salience
How much of your veteran
experience do you discuss/share
with your students?
How do you think your
students perceive your
veteran experience?
Do you fear sharing may invite
prejudice against you?
Do you think you share
differently with civilian
students and student
veterans?
RQ2
Selections processes
Contact mediators
Contact effects
Salience

157
Interview questions Potential probes Research questions
Key concepts
Can you describe a time where your
veteran experience helped you in
connecting with a student
veteran?
Have student veterans ever
requested your help with
interactions between
themselves and civilian
faculty members or civilian
students?
RQ2
Selections processes
Contact conditions
Contact mediators
Salience
Transfer effects
Do you know of any other military
veteran faculty members I should
meet with?
Conclusion to the Interview (to be read):
That was my final interview question, and I have stopped recording this session. Thank
you so much for your time! This was extremely enlightening for me, and I really appreciate you
sharing your perceptions and experiences. I may be reaching out in the future to conduct
member-checking, which means showing you portions of my dissertation to ensure that I have
captured your words and thoughts accurately. Additionally, if something comes to light during
my research, may I contact you for a follow-on interview?
Do you have any questions for me?
Is there anything I can do for you?
Again, thank you for your time and I hope you enjoy the rest of your
morning/afternoon/evening. Goodbye.

158
Appendix C: A Priori Code Frequencies
Code Representation (N = 12) # of references
Prior professional experience 12 71
Salience 12 62
Pre-transition contact opportunities 12 53
Intermediate roles 12 40
Decision to transition 12 37
Recommended support structures 12 25
Support to student veterans 11 48
Interactions with civilian student 11 39
Support structures 11 28
Prejudice 10 72
Need for support structures 10 28
Mentorship 9 21
Collaboration 9 20
Networks 8 16
Preconceptions of academia 8 12
Equal Status 7 13
Supportive environment 6 23
Interactions with civilian faculty 6 16
Reduced anxiety 6 8
Institutional support 5 10
Common goals 5 9
Empathy 3 7

159
Appendix D: Posteriori Code Frequencies
Code Representation (N = 12) # of references
Cultures 12 75
Service 12 49
Pre-transition teaching experience 10 27
Practitioners vs. academics 9 39
Kungas 9 28
Knowledge of academia 9 24
Satisfaction 9 17
Chameleons 8 27
Education barriers 8 21
Frustration 5 12

160
Appendix E: Description of Themes
Theme Description
Multiple pathways to the professoriate Military veteran faculty members are individuals
with diverse pre-, peri-, and post-military
experiences which encapsulate various contact
opportunities, motivations, and decisions to
join the professoriate.
Typicality in the transition Military veteran faculty members utilize
documented second career academic support
structures, perceive like barriers, benefit from
additional enablers, and express comparable
recommendations for additional support
structures.
Cultural chameleons and kungas Military veteran faculty members acknowledge
cultural differences between the military and
academic contexts, are adept at adapting to
new cultures within these contexts and
demonstrate the ability to move back and forth
between cultures as the situation dictates.
Bridges between a dialectical tension By virtue of their cross-acculturation, military
veteran faculty members experience and
resolve the dialectical tension of thinkers
versus doers.
Doing well while doing good Military veteran faculty members perceive
academic careers as a continuation of service,
and experience satisfaction in their service.
The ghost of Gordon Allport This research did not establish a correlational or
causal relationships between the perceptions
and experiences of military veteran faculty
members and Allport’s intergroup contact
theory. However, elements of the theory and
its contextual relevance are apparent
throughout the data.

161
Appendix F: A Priori and Posteriori Codebook (Alphabetical Order)
Type Code Description Example
ap Collaboration Instances of cooperation within
opportunities for interviewees to
work with member of academia
“And they were using me as that military voice.” (Carter)
“I had to work really closely with, say the business school dean...we’ve
worked a lot together then to kind of harmonize what would practically
work.” (Frank)
“Pretty much everything we did was collaborative.” (Henri)
“So, I would meet, you know, with faculty members once a month...and
these projects were developed collaboratively.” (Max)
“And so, it was very helpful to have the academia, the practical people that
worked in it, folks in government who understood the systems.”
(Michael)
“You know, in higher ed you... get to cross pollinate and work with people
across university...and a lot of the times they do appreciate my
perspective.” (Ralph)
“It was more collaborative than it was...it was never I know more because
I'm a blank. You know, less because you're a blank.” (Steve)
“We worked together because of the position that I had...I would be invited
in to work with students, to sit on a panel and talk about the profession.”
(Virgil)
ap Common goals Indicates a shared purpose within
opportunities for interviewees to
work with member of academia
“We were kind of the team...pursing gaming, not game theory, but gaming,
in the pursuit of military simulation.” (Carter)

162
Type Code Description Example
“So, we adapted the programs and developed slightly different versions for
the online environment.” (Frank)
“We did brainstorming and policy recommendation stuff together.” (Henri)
“We were actually more interested in in the academics and moving the
governance portion along than we were the military portion.” (Michael)
ap Decision to
transition
Indicates recollections of who,
what, when, where, or why
interviewees became members of
academia
“It wasn’t an overnight decision. It wasn’t one singular place in time. It just
was probably more of a realization...that I wanted to teach.” (Carter)
“And so, really, at first, I thought, wow! What a cool resume builder, even
if I don’t go on to teach like it shows that I was doing something while I
was getting my degree. So that was really the initial reason.” (Cathy)
“As a professor, you still have to grind to make tenure, but you grind on
projects you’re interested in, you know, not grind on billable hours. So
that’s what turned me towards the path of being a professor.” (Ferguson)
“I would say I have probably a pretty uncommon answer to that in the
sense that I was probably 15 when I planned life out. My general plan
was... I'm gonna join the Army. I'm gonna get out. I'm gonna teach K-12
for a while, and then eventually somewhere down the road, I will
transition from teaching high school.” (Frank)
“I guess it would be when I earned my master's degree [in] 1993, which
was three years after graduating college, so I knew that and then I’d be
interested in going back into the classroom in some capacity.” (Henri)
“And then I got an offer for a faculty position...and up until that day, I
never anticipated being a professor.” (Jake)

163
Type Code Description Example
“They [my professors] were all saying, like, you should go apply to a PhD
program...I never even considered it, and so the I started looking.” (Max)
“I knew I wanted to go into education post military.” (Michael)
“I was teaching at [military education institution] as a military professor, so
on active duty at the [military education institution]. I had every intention
of staying there - that was kind of my dream retirement job. So, I would
have been in higher ed regardless, I think.” (Steve)
“I’m kind of an accidental professor.” (Thomas)
“I think teaching is a core competency of any effective Army officer...and
it was really the teaching aspect that attracted me to the professoriate.”
(Virgil)
ap Empathy Indicates when an interviewee
considered the experiences,
thoughts, or feelings of someone
else
“As conservative as I am, I’m trying to be liberal in the sense that people
need time to learn, and everybody learns differently.” (Carter)
“And so that's when I really thought like I could do this, you know, like if
I'm perceived as being caring, which, you know, from studies shows that
that's what you know, students really like and everything.” (Cathy)
“The transition of getting out of the military, you know, feels like kind of
getting dropped off a cliff. And so, I kind of feel like that's probably the
way a lot of [the students] feel, you know, in their first year of college.”
(Cathy)
“I’d better rephrase what I'm about to ...some might just be aghast...that [a
potentially triggering phrase commonly used in the military] would come
out in a in a faculty meeting.” (Ralph)

164
Type Code Description Example
ap Equal Status Indicates an even power status
within opportunities for
interviewees to work with
member of academia
“There was a level field to an extent.” (Michael)
“What I thought was great is there was me and one other active-duty guy
who sat on that panel and we were equal members.” (Steve)
“There was a relationship of mutual respect. And if I was working with
them, you know, I always felt valued and never did I feel as though they
were intimidated by me, or I certainly wasn't intimidated by them. So, it
was a very much a you know, equitable in terms of power dynamic.”
(Virgil)
ap Institutional
support
Indicates where an interviewee
perceived a university’s
condonement of contact
opportunities
“Each college has a graduation, each fall and spring, and they always do a
thing like, we love our military and veterans and if you're a military or
veteran, please stand up.” (Frank)
“The veterans kind of you know...we had a very good veterans, student
veterans advisor or director, and she made the Vet Center, a very
welcoming place.” (Jake)
“We were literally building the organization from the ground up and
bringing in a lot of academics as we were talking about future fight and
future systems and how to do that.” (Michael)
“I've been on a lot of search committees where we have been hiring,
transitioning military folks onto our staff.” (Ralph)
ap Interactions
with civilian
faculty
Indicates when, where, and why an
interviewee, as a faculty member,
interacted with civilian faculty
“And it's not like they reject you. But there is definitely a repulsiveness. I
don’t know if I want to say its tacit, but you can, you can feel it.”
(Carter)
“I actively tried to reach out to different departments to meet with folks,
and I’m on different committees to try and disabuse folks of whatever

165
Type Code Description Example
predisposed notions they have and build... look it's all about
relationships, you know, try to build more relationships with different
departments.” (Michael)
“First of all, you gotta understand they've been immersed in this language
and they're using words that mean different things to you. Not
recognizing you don't understand that right? And so, I do that quite
frequently. So that's one of my big interactions with my civilian
counterparts.” (Steve)
“If anything, I wind up downplaying what I did [in the military] because it I
don't know, I'm not sure why really, maybe just because I don't, you
know...most of the people even on the faculty side the highlight of their
life was earning that PhD in many cases.” (Thomas)
ap Interactions
with civilian
student
Indicates when, where, and why an
interviewee, as a faculty member,
interacted with civilian students
“And then they go, that guy is such a hard ass.” (Carter)
“My students, you know, they think it's cool because they're that age...I
don't think they realize you know, war, you know, war and military and
all that stuff. It's not really that cool, but I thought so too when I was that
age. So, you know, I think it kind of plays to my benefit a little bit
actually, with my students.” (Cathy)
“I mean, I don't, I'm not out there, you know, waving a flag. Like look at
me, I'm an Army veteran or whatever. I'm definitely not doing that. But I
also don’t hide it to students.” (Frank)
“I'm a guest lecturer in a couple of classes, oddly enough in a neuroscience
class, which I always feel guilty going into because they're always
smarter than I am. But we talk about brain injuries, talk about the
different...I literally bring in helmets and explain to them the evolution of
protection.” (Michael)

166
Type Code Description Example
“I also lecture all freshmen, regardless of military track or civilian track.”
(Ralph)
“The students were interested in what you brought to the table in terms of
your experiences. So, bringing up a military reference or a story in the
classroom to illustrate a point was it was a good thing. And most of them
respected it greatly.” (Virgil)
ap Intermediate
roles
Indicates jobs or roles held by
interviewees in between
transitioning from military to
academia
“The transition for me began to look at flight schools...to go in as an
administrative level like you know, still faculty, but faculty admin, run a
flight school.” (Carter)
“Well, I mean, there was there was an intermediate gap there where I
worked as an administrator, right? So, I taught grades three through 12.
At various times, special education, gifted general education. I think it
was seven and a half years or something that I taught K-12.” (Frank)
“Okay, so I went from one series, which is the research specialist series to a
mainline faculty and that meant that I would be assigned three classes a
year to teach. So that was the transition.” (Jake)
“So, I wound up taking some jobs in Africa, which I thought was kind of
fun because I was missing the military, frankly.” (Thomas)
ap Mentorship Instances when an interviewee
used someone for help in their
transition to, or in their role as,
faculty
“But there are some of them, especially ones that have worked with the
military and one, Dr. Goodall specifically...who works with the Marine
Corps, and that was like, super refreshing my first year of graduate
school, to have somebody who I felt understood the military and like,
respected the military.” (Cathy)

167
Type Code Description Example
“And she was very helpful, and I could spend time with her and asked her
questions, and I had a mentor relationship. But that like honestly was
almost self-created, you know? Because I wanted to get better at teaching
and understand more about teaching.” (Ferguson)
“And it's there's no formal mentor assigned but I did find someone partway
through who was a few doors down it was really, really super helpful.”
(Frank)
“She encouraged me to go out and fight you know, find money, tuition
assistance to get the degree.” (Henri)
“He wasn't the instructor of record, but he'd been in all the classes before.
So, you know, I could kind of say, hey, how do we do this? how do we
do that and so that was I had that available.” (Steve)
“You know, look, I'm really comfortable standing up and talking in front of
people but R.T. was just, he was a master...and he helped me with lots of
different methodologies like using cases and using an experiential
learning center that's part of the school so that was really great.”
(Thomas)
ap Need for
support
structures
When an interviewee identified a
gap in their preparedness to work
in academia
“I've never been so far out on the tree branch before, right. Because in the
military, we're at the thick part of the branch next to the trunk. And the
further we transition from our military service, we kind of, I think, in a
veteran's mind we get closer to the thin part of the branch.” (Carter)
“No, definitely felt like I was completely unprepared when I first got in,
you know, to that first class or on that first day, like, I didn't even know
what the basic requirements for like the assignments I was giving were,
you know what I mean?” (Cathy)

168
Type Code Description Example
“I wasn't a traditional teacher prep person, traditional four year straight
through undergraduate and an education major. And so, it was just kind
of thrown to the wolves.” (Frank)
“Research wise, I could do it. But these other things, you know, I didn't
really understand...the transition was not as smooth as I would have
liked.” (Jake)
“I never...there was no mentor, or big support network or onboarding. It
was come in and the next you know, the first day it was just right, you're
in charge - execute. So, I had to figure all that stuff out.” (Ralph)
“There was nothing at the university, they were, they didn't know how to
deal with a guy like me. It wasn't within their realm of anticipation.”
(Virgil)
ap Networks Instances when an interviewee
used networks for help in their
transition to, or in their role as,
faculty
“So, when I transitioned to the entrepreneurship, and then started applying
to [Southern Public University], I was leveraging a network that included
a CEO of a multimillion-dollar corporation...a state senator...and I was
leveraging a previous graduate.” (Carter)
“So most of what I've relied on through my years post-military is peer
support, you know, finding the other sensible, if you will, people or the
people who were good at their job, those sorts of things, connecting with
them as mentors and comrades, you know, and working together.”
(Frank)
“I knew a lot of people in the department, and I just reached out to him said
- Hey, do you guys need anyone teaching in these types of topics?”
(Henri)

169
Type Code Description Example
“So, coming here was a bit of a transition in terms of just I don't know how
the university was organized...that took time and networking and just you
know, exposure.” (Ralph)
“I still interact with that group.” (Steve)
ap Pre-transition
contact
opportunities
Indicates pre-transition
opportunities for the interviewee
to work with members of
academia
“And they brought industry in, they brought academia, and they brought
the military in, and so twice I was on paper review boards.” (Carter)
“When I joined [the Navy] I just graduated with my undergraduate degree.”
(Cathy)
“A little bit of background is that I didn't go straight into the military. I
went to college first.” (Ferguson)
“As an administrator, because of the role that I had, I did work with faculty
quite a bit.” (Frank)
“Dr. L.C., specifically, she was one who sent me to get my PhD, but she
was specifically a professor from [an MEI] ...and that's who I worked
for.” (Henri)
“I was an undergrad during the first couple years, during the entire time of
my enlistment.” (Max)
“A lot of engagement there with people who had previously been
professors or were still working within the community.” (Michael)
“I did attend [an MEI] in residence as a student.” (Ralph)
“So, I was teaching at [military education institution] as a military
professor.” (Steve)

170
Type Code Description Example
“So, I had done a graduate degree at [Gateway University] and as part of
my foreign area officer training.”
“When I was the head of investigations...there was a local university that
had criminal justice programs. And so there was a lot of contact back and
forth between faculty members at that university in my organization.”
(Virgil)
ap Preconceptions
of academia
Interviewee’s pre-transition
concepts and prejudices of
universities, academics, and
teaching
“Nerd alert.” (Carter)
“All super smart, all understood the military understood where we were
coming from.” (Ralph)
“I would have seen them as different worlds. I would not have seen much
overlap or opportunity to contact.” (Virgil)
ap Prejudice Interviewee’s perceptions of
veteran stereotypes or
experiences of academia
prejudging veterans
“That guy's a military guy. You know, he's gonna bust your balls. He's
gonna be tough...He may be gruff. He may be insulting.” (Carter)
“They're just like, oh, you're a veteran. You're like one of those.” (Cathy)
“He literally got dinged...it was not a plus. And whether it's because he was
like my age and Vietnam veterans were thought to be a bunch of crazy
people, I don't know...” (Jake)
“The notion that one person who's in command says something [and]
everybody moves like a robot to go execute.” (Michael)
“We’re people of action.” (Ralph)
“It's the DEI people that frequently make the assumption about the fact that
we're all baby killers and whatever.” (Steve)

171
Type Code Description Example
“I wind up having to try to add a better-balanced perspective to the way a
lot of faculty members perceive veterans...so that they understand that
even, you know, veterans because you're serving in the military, you're
not a violent person. Or if you have PTSD, it doesn't render you
incapable.” (Thomas)
“She was she was making assumptions about that military people are
regimented, that they're directive. You know, they're, they're not free
thinkers.” (Virgil)
ap Prior
professional
experience
Instances where an interviewee
used previous knowledge, skills,
or attributes in their faculty role
“To me, it's almost like you have to be a self-starter in the civilian world.
But there's no better self-starter than a military veteran.” (Carter)
“It's that whole, right, adapt and overcome mentality.” (Cathy)
“I think understanding bureaucracy and recognizing that that is something
that doesn't change a drastic amount from military to academia is super
valuable.” (Frank)
“I taught national security policy for cyberspace.” (Henri)
“I think my experience is a FAO was actually pretty helpful because I've
come, I recognize that shifting from the military into the business world
is a cultural shift.” (Thomas)
“I think teaching is the core is a core competency of any effective Army
officer.” (Virgil)
ap Recommended
support
structures
Indicates when an interviewee
recommended a tool to support
veteran transitions to academia
“If we can make that path to the high school level, why can't we make that
path, maybe through the high school level, to the collegiate level?”
(Carter)
“It would definitely be like an in-person...kind of a mock thing...trying to
show them you know, what I mean, like demonstrations.” (Cathy)

172
Type Code Description Example
“Build a very simple mentorship program.” (Ferguson)
“Don't sell short your military experience into being similar in academia.”
(Frank)
“I would suggest that these assistant professors be included on committees
as an adjunct member...somebody out there who's really not expected to
contribute much, but they can see how the process works.” (Jake)
“So, I’m a big checklist person coming from aviation, right? It would
literally be hey, if you want to do this, these are some things you can do
to prepare.” (Michael)
“A mentorship program to have somebody who can help translate that
results oriented military lifestyle to a process centered [culture].” (Steve)
“There's a pecking order that relates to whether I go in as clinical or tenure
track. And then there's the rank structure. And those are the kinds of,
those would be aspects of the career development program that that I
would put together for them.” (Thomas)
“I think immersion in the profession of higher education, might be really
helpful.” (Virgil)
ap Reduced
anxiety
Indicated where an interviewee
perceived decreased anxiety or
increased comfort within
academia
“The reaction to me being stationed in Guantanamo Bay is curtailed, right,
with time.” (Ferguson)
“People were usually like, first off, you know what you're talking about,
and this all makes pretty good sense. And secondly, yeah, we trust you.”
(Frank)

173
Type Code Description Example
“I was the chairman of the chemistry department here for three
years...because I can deal with people as brilliant colleagues.” (Jake)
“I had these close relationships with faculty and graduate students.” (Max)
“There's a bunch of us on staff trying to build those relationships within the
university to try and get us off of our little piece of terrain.” (Michael)
ap Salience Instances where I, faculty, or
students perceived the
interviewee to be a military
veteran
“So, in my introduction on in the online stuff, I say, Hey, I'm an Air Force.
Retiree. I'm a pilot, C-17, KC-10, T-6, that's it.” (Carter)
“So, I'll like kind of throw references back to, you know, the military in
that way too, or, like certain military mantras that we have, I'll like, share
those with them. So, it kind of stays at the top of their head that I'm a
veteran.” (Cathy)
“I got a sticker on my door that says I'm, like, vet friendly.” (Ferguson)
“I started teaching, you know, intelligence operations at the strategic and
tactical and operational level...so that was a lot of war stories.” (Henri)
“Well, I can be a dick, okay? Two days ago, was March 29. It's National
Vietnam Veterans Day. So, I sent an email to off all my chemistry
faculty, 50 of them, and it just said - you're welcome.” (Jake)
“I didn't talk about my family to my students. So why would I talk about
my previous jobs?” (Max)
“On [Founder’s University], we stand out like a sore thumb in uniform.”
(Michael)
“A good chunk of...my stories, as it were, do tend to be military.” (Steve)

174
Type Code Description Example
“But still, I can't escape their, their view of me as a retired Lieutenant
Colonel.” (Thomas)
“My office memorabilia are not a bunch of military stuff. I think I have two
things on my wall that would indicate that I have served and that's
enough.” (Virgil)
ap Support
structures
Additional tools used by
interviewees to successfully aid
their transition from military to
academia
“Obviously, the emotional part of that support structure is going to be
family, right, friends.” (Carter)
“Definitely the GI Bill, you know, that post 9/11 GI Bill is really
awesome.” (Cathy)
“I used as much as I could with tuition assistance while I was in.” (Frank)
“Unit training funds, believe it or not.” (Henri)
“So, they sent me off for a fully funded program. And in exchange I owed
the Army three days of military service for every day I was in school.”
(Virgil)
ap Support to
student
veterans
Indicates instances where the
interviewee interacted or
provided direct support to a
student veteran
“And you give them that, that military feedback that they're used to and
able to receive.” (Carter)
We did have kind of a problem with one of our students, veterans...I found
out you know, because I heard other faculty talking about it, and I
actually offered if I could talk to that student, you know what I mean in
and kind of communicate, you know, with them and see what their
experiences were.” (Cathy)
“I can remember at least two different students that were vets that I've
focused my attention on. Probably a little bit more than I would have on
average.” (Ferguson)

175
Type Code Description Example
“I'm sure there's been some veterans that come and ask for mentorship.”
(Henri)
“Um, yeah, there's one guy who was struggling he has PTSD...so I
happened to have an office that was not being used and so I let him, I
gave him a key and so he can come in and study away from the noise at
all.” (Jake)
“And you can feel safe in allowing yourself to be vulnerable in an
environment...where everybody understands kind of where you're at.”
(Thomas)
ap Supportive
environment
Indicates where an organizationsponsored tool enabled an
interviewee’s transition to
academia
“So, like, that could be one thing that they did is they start they started us
with a little bit of a simpler class and gave us all materials for the class
too, right? It's kind of a lock step class. So, it's like, here's the slides,
here's the quizzes, here's the exam, right? They gave us everything.”
(Ferguson)
“I went to a couple of their faculty support seminars.” (Henri)
“We now have teaching faculty...and so they sort of guide us now, those of
us that are not teaching professors.” (Jake)
“It was some sort of Teaching Fellowship, and part of it included training,
and it was a weekly seminar that was done through I think they're calling
it just like, it was like the Teaching and Learning Center.” (Max)
“The other thing that I think that I have here, and I take regular advantage
of this is they have a center for excellence in teaching and learning. I'll
go to those classes, and I'll spend, you know, the, two days with the
syllabus, you know, learning about things, getting ideas, adjusting, and
so I think that we have we do have a really good program for that.”
(Steve)

176
Type Code Description Example
p Chameleons Indicates where an interviewee
identified a need for or
demonstrated adaptation to a new
role or culture
“I felt like once again, like military service and academia, like the two
worlds just really aren't usually compatible...you don't see a lot of
crossover.” (Cathy)
“The entire model of the military is to you know; you just figure it out.”
(Michael)
“I've been on a lot of search committees where we have been hiring
transitioning military folks onto our staff. One of the focus areas that we
talk about...how well are they going to adapt to a public education higher
ed environment?” (Ralph)
“And I think the life experience that I bring and the opportunity to have
worked in so many different environments...I know how to adjust to the
context of the moment. And, and that has helped me establish
relationships...at the university.” (Thomas)
“But I think again, successful military officers are somewhat organizational
chameleons. You know, we move a lot, we come into any different types
of organizations with many different types of people. And we adapt to
those cultures, and then try to positively influence them. But before you
positively influence culture, you got to understand that and, and be seen
by people in it as one of them.” (Virgil)
p Cultures Interviewees perceptions,
experiences, identification, or
comparisons of military and
academic cultures
“It's like, well, you know, you take the guy out of the military, but then you
can't take the military out of the guy.” (Carter)
“It definitely felt like a different world at that point for sure.” (Cathy)
“Yeah, there's PhDs and people are really nerdy about specific content. But
the artillery people were really nerdy about artillery too.” (Frank)

177
Type Code Description Example
“From a military perspective, we just approach problems entirely, entirely
differently...It's as much a cultural gap as it is anything.” (Michael)
“We can throw profanity across the room, and nobody thinks about it; it's
just punctuation for us. That is not normal and appropriate in a
nonmilitary setting.” (Ralph)
“They don't speak the language. It's a culture that's just completely
foreign...Civilians don't really understand that.” (Thomas)
“I make jokes about this all the time; about how different culture is in
higher education than it is in the military.” (Virgil)
p Education
barriers
Indicates where an interviewee
identified a need for a terminal
degree to join academia
“I applied three times to be the person to run that aviation degree program.
And three times I was not selected. And I believe from the feedback I
was given the only reason I was not selected as I did have a doctorate.”
(Carter)
“I started working towards my doctorate in education... [I] didn't
necessarily know what I wanted my doctorate in, but I knew I wanted to
go into higher ed.” (Michael)
“You better get your PhD or...you're going to not progress at all at a
university.” (Ralph)
“[I] walk into a room with 30 years of military experience and I'm instantly
not credible because I don't have three letters after my name.” (Steve)
“We need to recognize that the path into academia is just as long as hard as
the path, or you know, it's distinct, but there's a long and deliberate path,
I should say into academia, and it involves going through and earning in
most cases a PhD.” (Thomas)

178
Type Code Description Example
p Frustration Instances of an interviewee sharing
past of current feelings of
frustration with a process or
culture
“And I’m just an adjunct professor, but I was so successful previous to this.
Why is the why is this in my mind, why isn't success not translating?”
(Carter)
“So not really, I felt very isolated in some ways. There's a little bit of
bitterness because a lot of you know, faculty members when they're
hired, they've got six publications where they were third authors with
faculty in their department, and they had research mentoring and not me.
I had to totally wing it all myself.” (Frank)
“That was a really high level of frustration with some of the academics and
what I mean by that is, we think we have a hierarchy. They are worse.”
(Michael)
“It's still frustrating when you recognize what the results should be, but you
can't get there because the process has to be followed.” (Steve)
p Knowledge of
academia
Indicates an interviewee’s’
perceived understanding of the
technical and cultural aspects of
academia
I mean, I never was taught one thing about teaching.” (Jake)
“And that class actually helped me really understand why I was having
some challenges when I was on hiring committees. And I was asking
questions, they were looking at me like I had 12 heads, but it was just
cultural differences.” (Michael)
“I came here a little bit naive about what I was coming to do.” (Ralph)
“Occasionally, you know, his, his idea of a thoroughly researched article
was...probably more robust than my idea of a thoroughly researched
article.” (Steve)
p Kungas Indicates when an interviewee
identified the need to move
between or merge their two
cultures
“You're given a mission and you're given an assignment and ... there's all
these students there and I did kind of think of them as like, my team of
Airmen.” (Cathy)

179
Type Code Description Example
“I said, look, I understand the discipline, what I don't understand is how
student conduct...like how do you all do it?” (Michael)
“There's a lot of times we’re using military examples or using military
jargon or talking about...how you do performance feedback or career
counseling.” (Ralph)
“A lot of the people I dealt with on a regular basis were that in that
category...you could consider them pure academics...but they were also
military officers.” (Steve)
“Now, I downplay that. I insist on there's no rank in the classroom, call me
[Thomas]... but [if needed] I can jump right back into that position of
authority and put on my lieutenant colonel hat.” (Thomas)
“I think you know, you're there to do a specific job in a specific context.
And as long as your military identity contributes to that, you know, fly
the flag.” (Virgil)
p Practitioners
vs. academics
Perceptions of exclusivity or
divergence between doers and
thinkers, or military and
academia
“You know, I'm a doer...and when you have that mindset, the last thing you
want to do is be sitting in a classroom teaching theory.” (Carter)
“The ones that go just straight through school...and don't have any like,
other experience outside of that then it does kind of seem like they
concern themselves over things, you know, that maybe seem like not that
big of a deal.” (Cathy)
“I think there is just a hint of condescension in me, that looks down on
those 26-year-olds or 28-year-olds...who've only had their nose in a book
for last 10 years.” (Frank)
“They don't value your operational experience anywhere near as much as
they value your publishing experience and research agenda.” (Henri)

180
Type Code Description Example
“I'm not talking about something I read, it's something I've experienced.”
(Michael)
“It was more academics versus practitioners than...military versus
academics.” (Steve)
“The Army values operational experience, but the civilian system of higher
education, certainly the accreditors, they appreciate credentials first.”
(Virgil)
p Pre-transition
teaching
experience
Indicates pre-transition instances
where interviewees had a training
or educational role
“I was what they call a flight commander, where I was responsible for one
class of students and take them through their matriculation through the
course. And then the next assignment, I was actually at the schoolhouse.
We call it PIT, pilot instructor training. Okay, so I was an instructor of
instructors.” (Carter)
“I was that Training Program Manager for my squadron.” (Cathy)
“I think I taught like 40 or 50 people how to swim.” (Ferguson)
“The next assignment was to the back to the faculty of the [service
academy].” (Henri)
“As a grad student I taught maybe six quarters. And so, I wasn't like I went
into teaching completely without any experience.” (Jake)
“I was teaching at [military education institution] as a military professor.”
(Steve)
“I wound up taking some jobs in Africa...teaching peacekeeping
operations.” (Thomas)

181
Type Code Description Example
“I had the opportunity as an Army officer to do a lot of teaching.” (Virgil)
p Satisfaction Instances when an interviewee
shared feelings of joy or
accomplishment with their role as
faculty
“So, the experience itself has been positive on the whole.” (Carter)
“It was after that first semester that I thought wow, you know, I think I
could really get good at this.” (Cathy)
“I love going to class and engaging with the students and sharing my
knowledge. I enjoy doing that. So that's the reason I do it.” (Henri)
“It's made my life fuller by having these students in my life.” (Jake)
“We get great satisfaction in the military creating a cohesive team to go out
and accomplish a mission and watching people rise to the ranks and
coaching them along. It's the same return here in terms of seeing kids’
eyes open up, their perspectives broadened, their maturation from over a
four-year period.” (Ralph)
“I truly enjoy teaching.” (Thomas)
“It's the interaction with a group of people and taking them from where
they are to somewhere else. That can be exceedingly gratifying.” (Virgil)
p Service Instances when interviewees
mentioned selflessness, helping
students or universities, or a
higher purpose
“I want them to be ready to go out on that tactical, leading edge of
battlefield, whether it's industry, whether it's academia, whether it's
airlines, right, and be ready to apply skills that they learned in the
classroom.” (Carter)
“Being able to...put aside myself in order to, like, kind of, serve the
students. It made me feel really good in a way that like, my service, did.”
(Cathy)

182
Note. ap = a priori; p = posteriori.
Type Code Description Example
“I've never had an ‘aha’ moment. But, but there's this...where I kind of told
myself that I wanted to work on something I was proud of.” (Jake)
“And one year I was the person who was doing it. But that was also the
year during a really tight budget crunch. And so, I wasn't getting paid for
it. And so, I was told specifically, we're not paying you for this - don't
work too hard. Okay, and I did it.” (Max)
“My father had been a teacher, my uncle been a teacher, my daughter's a
teacher right too, we’re with genetically predisposed to poor-paying,
thankless jobs.” (Michael)
“There's a servant leadership aspect of the military, there is servant
leadership aspect in higher ed, I think.” (Ralph)
“I can point to things that I've created or the things that I've influenced or
people that I've you know, had an impact on their lives. And I guess, if
you're teaching them then that's probably what you focus on is you know,
the impact that you have on young people's lives.” (Thomas)
“And then this opportunity came up, and I took it. And what it meant was, I
would serve the rest of my career at the [MEI]. And I would never be
promoted above colonel, and I had to sign an agreement that said, if
selected for brigade command, I would decline.” (Virgil)

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Exploring the satisfaction, experiences, institutional support of student veterans in transition to higher education: a case study

PDF

Schlossberg's transition theory: a framework for evaluating student-veterans’ transition to higher education institutions

PDF

Academic coaching practices for students with learning disabilities and differences

PDF

Higher education faculty and reflective practice

PDF

Applying Schlossberg’s transition theory to the student veteran transfer experience at the University of Southern California: a qualitative case study

PDF

The underrepresentation of African Americans in information technology: an examination of social capital and its impact on African Americans’ career success

PDF

Leadership in turbulent times: a social cognitive study of responsible leaders

PDF

Analysis of faculty professional identity upon culturally responsive practices and pursuit of critical thinking

PDF

A case study of the academic and behavioral support provided to military-connected children in public schools

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Equity and access for veteran's students in the California community colleges

PDF

Development of higher education student affairs staff to assist U.S. military veteran college students

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Transitional barriers from adult education to postsecondary education in California

PDF

Casualties of conflict: trauma and belonging in refugee and immigrant youth

PDF

Mitigating veteran suicide: exploring connectedness in veterans repatriating into society as a means of increasing resiliency

PDF

An examination of factors that affect online higher education faculty preparedness

PDF

Investigating differences in online & traditional student perceptions of value and satisfaction with five key educational elements

Asset Metadata

Creator Harris, Jason Todd (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2023-12

Publication Date 11/30/2023

Defense Date 10/13/2023

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

Tag Academia,faculty,intergroup contact theory,military veterans,OAI-PMH Harvest,postsecondary education,Prejudice,salience,second-career academics,student veterans

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Datta, Monique (committee chair), Maddox, Anthony (committee member), Pritchard, Marc (committee member)

Creator Email jason.t.harris1@gmail.com,jasontha@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113781069

Unique identifier UC113781069

Identifier etd-HarrisJaso-12504.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-HarrisJaso-12504

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Harris, Jason Todd

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20231201-usctheses-batch-1110 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu