Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Inclusion of adjunct faculty in the community college culture
(USC Thesis Other)
Inclusion of adjunct faculty in the community college culture
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
1
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY IN THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE CULTURE
by
Lisa M. Gaetje
________________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2020
Copyright 2020 Lisa M. Gaetje
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
2
Acknowledgements
I want to thank my committee members for their guidance and support through this
process. My committee chair, Dr. Stowe, has been an invaluable resource along this journey.
Dr. Datta was my first OCL professor and held our group to high standards. She set the tone for
Cohort 8, a group of truly amazing professionals. Dr. Picus has been so helpful in asking
questions and offering alternate perspectives.
I appreciate my Cohort 8 family, especially the Saturday morning crew, who
commiserated over three years of Saturday mornings, but missed each other as soon as
coursework was behind us. The diverse perspectives and professional experiences of the cohort,
and the collective integrity and collegiality of this group has had a tremendous impact on me.
My research could not have moved forward without support from Robert Dickson,
Kristina Oganesian, and Philip Dykstra, all of whom were instrumental in supporting the
development of my research design and data collection. I will always be grateful for your help,
encouragement, and support.
I would be remiss if I did not thank my adult children who were all in college themselves
during my doctoral journey. Taylor, Devin, and Bailey, I hope your curiosity, thirst for
knowledge, and quest for discovery remain a constant as you pursue your own education and
begin your careers. You are all my reason for so much of what I do. A shout out to my sister,
Donna, who supports all of my crazy plans and dreams. Lastly, Hope and Avery, you were
surprise participants in the final stretch, and had to sacrifice some of our time together for me to
get to the finish line. A thank you to all of these family members and friends for their
commitment to me.
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
3
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements 2
List of Tables 4
List of Figures 5
Abstract 6
Introduction to Problem of Practice 7
Organizational Context and Mission 8
Importance of Addressing the Problem 9
Purpose of the Project and Questions 10
Research Questions 11
Organizational Performance Goal 11
Description of Stakeholder Groups 11
Stakeholder Group of Focus 12
Stakeholder Performance Goals 13
Review of the Literature 13
Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences 21
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation 31
and the Organizational Context
Data Collection and Instrumentation 33
Findings 41
Solutions and Recommendations 58
Conclusion 71
Appendix A: Participating Stakeholders with Sampling Criteria for Survey and Focus 73
Groups
Appendix B: Protocols 75
Appendix C: Credibility and Trustworthiness 88
Appendix D: Validity and Reliability 89
Appendix E: Ethics 90
Appendix F: Implementation and Evaluation Plan 92
Appendix G: Evaluation Instruments 105
References 107
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
4
List of Tables
Table 1. Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals 13
Table 2. Knowledge Influences, Knowledge Types and Knowledge Influence 25
Assessment
Table 3. Assumed Motivation Influences and Motivational Influence Assessment 28
Table 4. Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 59
Table 5. Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 63
Table 6. Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations 67
Table F1. Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 94
Table F2. Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation 96
Table F3. Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors 97
Table F4. Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program 101
Table F5. Components to Measure Reactions to the Program 102
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
5
List of Figures
Figure 1. The connection between adjunct faculty knowledge and motivation, 32
organizational models, and stakeholder goals
Figure 2. Race of respondents 37
Figure 3. Respondent discipline affiliation 37
Figure 4. Part-time faculty employment type 38
Figure 5. Years of teaching experience 39
Figure 6. Years of teaching experience at Bailey Canyon College 40
Figure 7. Survey responses to “I have an understanding of how decisions are made 46
at the college”
Figure 8. Survey responses to “I believe my involvement in the college campus outside 49
of the classroom makes a difference for students”
Figure 9. Survey response to “There are adequate opportunities for adjunct faculty to 53
meaningfully engage with their colleagues”
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
6
Abstract
This study employed a mixed methods approach to study how adjunct faculty are included in the
college culture at a California community college. Community colleges are relying more heavily
on adjunct faculty for classroom instruction. Survey and focus group data were collected from
adjunct faculty to assess the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that affect adjunct
faculty participation in the college outside of the classroom and to better understand what factors
affect adjunct faculty perceptions of their inclusion in the college culture. Surveys were
completed by 91 adjunct faculty members and six of those adjunct faculty members participated
in focus groups designed to triangulate survey responses. The findings of this study revealed
gaps in institutional knowledge and motivational gaps that served as hurdles to adjunct faculty
inclusion. Additionally, this study identified organizational barriers that impacted the active
engagement of adjunct faculty outside of the classroom, affecting adjunct faculty perceptions of
their inclusion in the college. The findings of this study emphasize the need for professional
development and increased adjunct-focused communication as core recommendations to enhance
adjunct faculty inclusion in the college culture.
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
7
Introduction to Problem of Practice
Across sectors of the economy, there has been an increase in the professional contingent
workforce. Institutional flexibility and efficiency have made this model attractive for
corporations and public institutions (Karim, 2014). Contingent workers hold temporary status in
an organization, are likely to have less job security, and may receive few, if any, fringe benefits
from the company (Karim, 2014). Higher education is no exception. In fact, Hurlburt and
McGarrah (2017) studied this shift in higher education, noting the trend across all types of higher
education institutions. In their study of professional contingent workers in academia, they refer
to tenure as a historically central feature of American higher education, but indicate that this is
no longer the case. Though the increased reliance on contingent faculty, also commonly referred
to as part-time or adjunct, is evident across institutional types, community colleges had the
largest share of part-time faculty with contracts of less than one year in duration (Hurlburt &
McGarrah, 2017).
Nationwide, part-time status faculty with contracts of less than one year accounted for
50% of the faculty at community colleges and another 17% were classified as having no status
assigned by the institution (Hurlburt & McGarrah, 2017). It is estimated that adjunct faculty
teach 56% of the courses in community colleges nationwide (Smith, 2012). In 1989, the
California Legislature and the Board of Governors enacted AB1725, known as the 75/25 rule,
with the goal of ensuring that 75% of California community college classes would be taught by
full-time faculty compared to 25% by adjunct faculty (Walton, 2004). That goal has never been
achieved. In the Fall 2018 semester, the California Community College Chancellor’s Office
reported that statewide, adjunct faculty accounted for 45.56% of employees in community
colleges, including all classified staff, managers, and faculty employees. That number was even
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
8
higher for the Bailey Canyon College, with 55.01% employed as adjunct faculty and 22.33%
employed as tenured or tenure-track faculty for the same time period (California Community
Colleges Chancellor’s Office, 2013). Tenure-track faculty spend four years being successfully
evaluated by committee to earn tenure at the college. Bailey Canyon College hires faculty as
tenured, tenure-track, or adjunct, and in rare instances, may hire a faculty position on a one-year
contract. Adjunct faculty are hired on a semester-to-semester contract with no guarantees of
future employment.
Research evidence highlights the inequities experienced by adjunct faculty and by
students when adjunct faculty is peripheral or marginalized, and when institutions fail to include
adjunct faculty in policy, program modification, and governance (Kezar & Sam, 2013; Meixner,
Kruck, & Madden, 2010). Though needs for skill development, mentoring, and orientation are
expressed by adjunct faculty, an additional emerging theme is a sense of community disconnect
(Meixner et al., 2010; Morton, 2012). Much of the research on adjunct faculty focuses on the
adjunct faculty themselves, honing in on issues like classroom management, instructional skills,
and grading (Fagan-Wilen, Springer, Ambrosino, & White, 2006; McLaughlin, 2005). However,
additional research suggests that institutional change is necessary for addressing the disconnect
from the college culture reported by adjunct faculty members, and their lack of voice and
inclusion in the campus community (Meixner et al., 2010; Morton, 2012). This study will
address the problem of inclusion and disconnect among adjunct faculty at a community college
setting, using the pseudonym Bailey Canyon College.
Organizational Context and Mission
Bailey Canyon College is a California community college with 16,000 students. There
are 215 full-time faculty members, over 400 adjunct faculty members, approximately 245
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
9
support staff, and 40 managers. The mission of the institution is focused on awarding associate
degrees and certificates, and preparing students to transfer to a university. The college
emphasizes academic support of their diverse student population, prioritizing equity-based
practices. The college’s identified core values are excellence, integrity, collegiality, and
inclusiveness.
Importance of Addressing the Problem
The lack of inclusion in the college culture is important to address because of the
increased reliance on adjunct faculty to teach classes (Hurlburt & McGarrah, 2017; Smith, 2012).
College or school culture refers to traditions, expectations, attitudes and behaviors of a school
that reflect its mission and its demographics. Inclusion refers to a sense of belongingness and
connectedness that comes from understanding and being a part of that culture (Greunert &
Whitaker, 2015).
Students will leave community colleges having received much of their instruction from
adjunct faculty members, suggesting that community colleges could benefit from understanding
the needs and contributions of this employee group. As the proportion of adjunct faculty
members to full-time faculty members has increased, the status of adjunct faculty members
within community colleges has not increased, with substantial research suggesting that adjunct
faculty are not adequately included in the organizations for which they work (Jolly, Cross, &
Bryant, 2014; Kezar, 2012; Kezar & Sam, 2013; Spaniel & Scott, 2013, Wallin, 2004).
However, community colleges and students benefit from a culture in which adjunct faculty are
included (Fagan-Wilen et al., 2006; McLaughlin, 2005; Meixner et al., 2010; Wyles, 1998).
Since student success is linked to instructor support, students are at greater risk of struggling
academically when they are served primarily by under-resourced and disconnected adjunct
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
10
faculty (Walpole, 2003). Inclusion can mean a shift in how faculty, staff and management think
about their adjunct faculty, and it can also mean that institutions are intentional about including
their adjunct faculty in decision-making bodies and resource allocation (Kezar & Sam, 2013;
Morton, 2012).
Understanding and investing in adjunct faculty working conditions and experience of the
college culture benefits adjuncts directly, by increasing faculty retention and institutional
knowledge. Institutional changes that result from a better understanding of adjunct faculty also
impact the institution and its students, especially changes that allow adjunct faculty to effectively
direct students in accessing college support services (Center for Community College Student
Engagement, 2014; Jolley et al., 2014; Smith, 2012; Walpole, 2003).
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to evaluate the degree to which Bailey Canyon College is
meeting its goal of enhancing engagement and inclusion of adjunct faculty in the college culture.
Closely related, the college strives to improve its campus climate by fostering an environment
that is consistent with its core values, two of which are collegiality and inclusiveness. This
analysis focused on institutional knowledge of adjunct faculty and their motivation to be
involved in the college. The study also focused on organizational factors that support or impede
the capacity for adjunct faculty to engage actively in the college culture. While a complete
evaluation would focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes the stakeholder for this
analysis is limited to adjunct faculty.
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
11
Research Questions
1. To what extent is Bailey Canyon College meeting its goal of improving campus
climate by fostering an environment that is consistent with the college’s core values
of collegiality and inclusiveness?
2. What is the stakeholder knowledge and motivation related to the organizational goal?
Organizational Performance Goal
Bailey Canyon College is currently invested in the implementation of its strategic plan
which captures years 2017–2020. Organizational effectiveness and excellence is a defined
priority known as Strategic Direction B and consisting of six specific goals. Three of those goals
relate to this research project and intersect with one another: (1) create organizational structures
and practices that enhance participatory governance, a sense of ownership of decision-making
processes, and campus engagement; (2) enhance professional development; and (3) improve
campus climate by fostering an environment that is consistent with the College’s core values,
which include excellence, integrity, collegiality and inclusiveness. Consistent with the college
strategic plan, by October 2021, 100% of adjunct faculty who have completed at least one
semester teaching at the college will report increased connection to the college culture through
enhanced participation, greater campus engagement, and more investment in college decision-
making where college policy allows.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
There are many stakeholders who directly contribute to and benefit from the achievement
of the Bailey Canyon College’s goal, including administration, full-time faculty, adjunct faculty,
counseling and support staff, classified support staff, and students. The administration includes
the President, Vice Presidents, Deans, and managers across campus who will need to provide the
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
12
leadership and resources for the attainment of the goal. Full-time faculty and classified staff also
play a critical role in the attainment of the goal through their regular contact with adjunct faculty.
Stakeholder Group of Focus
Although a complete analysis of the mechanisms that affect inclusion in college culture
would involve all stakeholder groups, this study focused on the role of adjunct faculty in
achieving this goal. This group was chosen because of the increased reliance on adjunct faculty
for teaching classes at community college campuses. Since almost 60% of all classes at Bailey
Canyon College are taught by adjunct faculty, it is important to consider their role in the college
campus culture. Furthermore, adjunct faculty are often not included in community college
decision-making and strategic planning. Since Bailey Canyon College includes collegiality and
inclusiveness as being core values, it would be valuable to understand the adjunct faculty role in
the college climate and perceptions about their inclusion in college initiatives aimed at student
success and organizational excellence. This study focused on adjunct experiences and attitudes
about those variables included in the measure of campus climate and explored their
understanding of the institution’s efforts to include them in the college culture.
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
13
Stakeholder Performance Goals
Table 1
Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
Bailey Canyon College enriches students’ lives by providing educational opportunities
including transfer to four-year institutions, associate degrees, and certificates. The College
is dedicated to supporting the success of students, engaging in equity-minded practices, and
demonstrating core values of excellence, integrity, collegiality, and inclusiveness.
Organizational Performance Goal
By October 2021, 100% of college employees will report increased connection to the college
culture through enhanced participation, more investment in college decision-making
processes, and greater campus engagement.
Adjunct Faculty Goal Full-time Faculty Goal Manager Goal
By October 2021, 100% of
regularly-scheduled adjunct
faculty will report increased
connection to the college
culture through enhanced
participation, more investment
in college decision-making
processes, and greater campus
engagement.
By May 2021, 100% of full-
time faculty will report
increased connection to the
college culture through
enhanced participation, more
investment in college
decision-making processes,
and greater campus
engagement.
By December 2021, the
college managers will be
able to identify one or
more organizational
changes implemented to
enhance faculty and staff
connections to the college
culture.
Review of the Literature
Background
In higher education, the composition of the teaching faculty has shifted over the years.
Up until the last several decades, classes at four-year universities and community colleges were
taught mostly by full-time faculty (Champlin & Knoedler, 2017). Adjunct faculty would teach
additional unassigned classes and would be available for classes taught outside of the traditional
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
14
teaching schedule, especially night classes. Adjunct faculty were often hired because they were
professionals who worked outside of academia who were able to bring a high level of expertise
from the private sector (Stenerson, Blanchard, Fassiotto, Hernandez, & Muth, 2010). Students
historically benefitted from the industry knowledge that an adjunct faculty member could bring
into the classroom when their primary employment was in the private sector.
The role of the adjunct shifted as college budgets were tightened and adjunct faculty
could be hired as an economic benefit to the institution (Champlin & Knoedler, 2017; Hoeller,
2014; Shulman, 2019). In the last few decades, adjunct faculty have been hired as a cost savings
approach, resulting in lower costs for colleges in benefits, pay, and overhead such as office space
(Curtis, Mahabir, & Vitullo, 2016; Kramer, Gloeckner, & Jacoby, 2014). The flexibility of
hiring adjunct faculty also allowed colleges and universities to make changes and respond to
student needs without the ongoing obligation of employing a tenured faculty member (Cohen &
Brawer, 2008; Shulman, 2019). This shift in the role of adjunct faculty has essentially resulted
in a two-tier system for full-time and adjunct faculty, changing the role of the adjunct from
discipline expert to a college second-class citizen (Kezar, 2012; McEwan & McEwan, 2003;
McLaughlin, 2005). Bakley and Brodersen’s (2018) study likened this shift to the “Wal-
martification” of higher education, where part-time workers with low pay, no benefits, and little
job security are employed as a costs-savings measure.
While the trend toward reliance on adjunct faculty is evident in private and public four-
year universities, as well as community colleges, the extent to which this shift has occurred and
its impact varies by geography, discipline, and type of institution (Spaniel & Scott, 2013). This
study focused on adjunct faculty at one California community college.
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
15
Today’s Adjunct Faculty Members
As the percentage of classes taught by adjunct faculty at community colleges has
changed, so too have the adjunct faculty members themselves. In 1975, adjunct faculty taught
just 20–25% of classes at colleges nationwide. By 2012, well above 50% of classes at
community colleges nationwide were being taught by adjunct faculty (Smith, 2012). A report by
the American Association of University Professors indicated that by 2015, a full 70% of the
academic labor force in all types of academic institutions was made up of contingent labor,
including full-time non-tenure track, part-time, and graduate student employee labor, with 40%
of that number being adjunct faculty (AAUP, 2017).
To better understand the role of adjunct faculty in an institution, it is useful to recognize
that adjunct faculty teach part-time for a wide range of reasons. Many of the adjunct faculty
teaching at community colleges are relatively new to teaching and aspire to work full-time (Ott
& Dippold, 2018a; Wallin, 2004). Other faculty members began with aspirations of teaching
full-time, but as years pass with little opportunity for full-time status, some instructors
inadvertently become “professional adjuncts,” often traveling between multiple campuses to
piece together enough work (Bakley & Brodersen, 2018). Still other faculty members work part-
time by choice, because teaching is secondary to a full-time occupation, as part of a move toward
retirement, or because it is ideal for them given other work-life balance factors (Gappa & Leslie,
2002; Wallin, 2004).
An adjunct-by-choice faculty member likely has very different needs at the institution
than adjunct faculty who would prefer full-time status. For example, instructors early in their
career, especially those who aspire to be full-time, may have greater need for mentorship,
professional development aimed at teaching methodologies, and mechanisms for gaining
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
16
institutional knowledge. By contrast, adjunct faculty members choosing their adjunct status may
be very experienced, skilled and competent instructors (Gappa & Leslie, 2002). The latter group
may have less need or interest in gaining knowledge about teaching or about the institution
(Meixner et al., 2010). They may also place less emphasis on the importance of collegiality and
inclusiveness. Maynard and Joseph (2006) conducted a study that found that those adjunct
faculty members who preferred part-time status, a group they classified as voluntary adjunct
faculty, were more similar in job satisfaction to their full-time tenured or tenure-track peers than
to their involuntary part-time colleagues.
Needs of Adjunct Faculty Members
There is a well-established body of literature that addresses the economic inequities
experienced by adjunct faculty members, particularly in comparison to their full-time peers
(Champlin & Knoedler, 2017; Shulman, 2019). Adjunct faculty members are generally paid per
lecture hour, not accounting for work done in preparation for class, working with students,
grading, or maintaining currency in their discipline (Shulman, 2019). When these other tasks are
accounted for, it has been argued that adjunct faculty do not make a living wage, nor the benefits
typically afforded to full-time faculty, despite working in a professional field that requires a
professional degree (Champlin & Knoedler, 2017; Gappa & Leslie, 2002).
Research also suggests that adjunct faculty members need assistance and support in
developing discipline expertise or teaching strategies that will be effective in the classroom
(Kezar, 2012; Meixner et al., 2010; Wallin, 2004). In some cases, the need for instructional
strategies is identified by the adjunct faculty members themselves (Dolan, Hall, Karlsson, &
Martinak, 2013; Wallin, 2004). In other instances, this need is reported as a perception of full-
time faculty and department chairpersons about their department adjunct faculty (Harrington &
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
17
Schibik, 2001). In some of the research, there is an acknowledgement that teaching strategies
may be less a function of inexperience than lack of time, since adjunct faculty members are not
paid for office hours or time for instructional development (Baldwin & Wawrzynski, 2011;
Champlin & Knoedler, 2017; Eagan & Jaeger, 2008; Kezar, 2012; Kuh, Nelson & Umbach,
2004). While these practical concerns need further attention, the psychological and needs of
adjunct faculty are also central to the well-being of adjunct faculty.
Status of Adjunct Faculty Members
Beyond the needs for pay, benefits, job stability, and training in instructional methods,
adjunct faculty members have identified needs that speak more to their status and role within the
institution. Despite the fact that adjunct faculty teach 56% of classes at community college
campuses across the United States, their status within the institution has remained low (Smith,
2012). Adjunct faculty are often regarded as less important and less capable than their full-time
faculty colleagues on community college campuses (Bakley & Brodersen, 2018; Kezar, 2012;
McLaughlin, 2005; Morton, 2012; Townsend & Twombley, 2007). As a result, many adjunct
faculty believe that they are thought of as “second-class” citizens (McLaughlin, 2005). Weisman
and Marr’s (2002) study revealed that adjunct faculty are perceived as having lower importance
and less prestige compared to others in higher education. Furthermore, their absence in the
campus-wide culture reinforces the belief that adjunct faculty are less valued (Kezar, 2012;
Kramer et al., 2014; McLaughlin, 2005; Morton, 2012).
Adjunct faculty report their lack of voice, engagement, and inclusion as being among the
biggest challenges of serving an institution as an adjunct faculty member (Jolley et al., 2014;
McLaughlin, 2005; Thirolf, 2012; Wallin, 2004). For example, adjunct faculty members
reported that they are rarely included in committees or department meetings (Jolley et al., 2014).
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
18
Adjunct faculty members also reported limited opportunities for professional development
(Jolley et al., 2014; Wallin, 2004). Furthermore, Thirolf’s (2012) study suggested that
professional identity for adjuncts is enhanced by interaction with students and by teaching itself,
while there is a negative relationship between professional identity and interaction with full-time
faculty and management, suggesting that these interactions validate the belief that adjunct faculty
members have about their status on campus. Kezar and Maxey (2013) also contend that the shift
in faculty structure has resulted in a polarization between tenured faculty members and adjunct
faculty members which undermines collaboration and mutual respect.
The Adjunct Role in the Institution
College policies and procedures related to adjunct involvement may affect teaching
quality and outcomes (Meixner et al., 2010; Spaniel & Scott, 2013). Institutions described as
having favorable policies toward contingent or part-time faculty looked intentionally at the
institutional role in creating that culture. Kezar and Sam (2013) found that institutions where
adjunct faculty felt included in the institution had gone to significant efforts to mobilize and
implement institutional change in recognition of adjunct faculty members as an integral part of
institutional success. These institutions had been intentional, for example, in designating adjunct
seats on decision-making bodies, paying adjunct faculty for office hours, or enhancing
professional development opportunities designated for adjunct faculty members. Kezar and Sam
(2013) utilized data from interviews and document analysis from a larger study which aimed to
identify institutional strategies and changes from 30 different campuses that had resulted in
positive culture shifts for institutions with respect to their adjunct faculty. Best practices
explored in Kezar and Sam’s (2013) study remain uncommon. More commonly a two-tiered
faculty system exists, where adjunct faculty are not visible on campus outside of the classroom.
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
19
Adjunct faculty are less likely to serve on committees or engage in institutional decision-
making (Dolan et al., 2013; Meixner et al., 2010). A common misconception is that adjunct
faculty are not interested in campus involvement. On the contrary, on most campuses, adjunct
faculty are more likely to indicate that they want to be involved than not (Kezar, 2012; Ott &
Dippold, 2018b). In addition to their absence from decision-making committees, adjunct faculty
lack substantial roles in shared governance (Kezar & Sam, 2013). Involvement in shared
governance and committee membership ultimately equates to having a voice in campus affairs
which, in turn, affects how connected adjunct faculty members feel to the college (Kezar & Sam,
2013; Meixner et al., 2010; Rhoades, 1996).
Adjunct faculty also report the need for the same types of professional development
opportunities as their full-time faculty peers, not just to allow them to teach better, but to connect
adjunct faculty to the institution (Dolan et al., 2013; Fagan-Wilen et al., 2006; Jolley et al.,
2014). Since professional development is a resource allocation concern, it will only be addressed
if administration become more aware of the adjunct faculty concerns and needs. Adjunct faculty
also report the need for mentoring, again, not just to improve their teaching, but to establish
relationships with other campus professionals (Diegel, 2013). Dolan et al. (2013) concluded that
adjunct faculty felt more connected to the college when budgets and professional development
agendas acknowledge the needs of adjunct faculty. To feel included, adjunct faculty need
consistent and ongoing communication with management, division/department chairs, and full-
time faculty peers. In interviews with adjunct faculty, Diegel (2013) found that many adjunct
faculty reported that they felt supported by department chairpersons when there was regular and
strong communication that included adjunct faculty.
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
20
Adjunct Perceptions of Campus Climate
Bakley and Brodersen’s (2018) qualitative study of adjunct faculty concluded that there
was a sense of not being an outsider, but not quite an insider with full-time faculty members.
Adjunct faculty who participated in the study were grateful to be heard and were likely to have
indicated that they were not accustomed to having input or being asked about their experience as
adjuncts. Kezar’s (2012) studies have demonstrated that, on many community college campuses,
adjunct faculty are perceived as having inferior credentials and as individuals who are unable to
secure a tenure-track job. These perceptions result in barriers to institutional change and low
levels of respect for adjunct faculty. For example, full-time faculty members are less likely to
include adjunct faculty members in textbook selection if they believe adjunct faculty to be less
qualified than full-time faculty. The absence of adjunct faculty in decision-making goes beyond
sound institutional policy. For many adjunct faculty members, absence in decision-making is
symbolic, sending the message that adjunct faculty are not valued and included, nor is their
professional expertise acknowledged (Ott & Dippold, 2018b). When adjunct faculty are
invisible as a stakeholder group, administration, staff, full-time faculty and even students begin
to devalue the very group that is teaching more than half of their classes.
Adjunct faculty have communicated the desire for meaningful connection to the
campuses at which they teach (Ott & Dippold, 2018b). Studies suggest that adjunct faculty
perceptions of campus climate are predicated on the extent to which they feel included,
respected, valued, and part of a community (Kimmel & Fairchild, 2017; Townsend &
Twombley, 2007). Some institutions have acknowledged and addressed the institution’s need to
be intentional in support of their adjunct faculty (Kezar & Sam, 2013). However, the limited
success of widespread institutional changes for adjunct faculty suggests either an administrative
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
21
lack of understanding or a lack of resources earmarked for supporting adjunct faculty. This
study will provide a snapshot of adjunct perceptions and experiences that will better inform
administration as to the needs of the college adjunct faculty.
Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
Knowledge Influences
Adjunct faculty members at community colleges feel more included in their institution
when they have knowledge about institutional infrastructure, policies, initiatives, and procedures
(Jolley et al., 2014; McLaughlin, 2005; Thirolf, 2012; Wallin, 2004). Adjunct faculty report the
importance of inclusion in campus culture and having a voice within their institutions (Thirolf,
2012). Understanding how and why adjunct faculty do or do not engage in existing campus-
wide activities, as well as understanding what engagement opportunities they would like to be
included in, can be better understood through the analysis of knowledge and motivation gaps. In
fact, in any field, organizational performance problems require understanding of the knowledge
and skills of the stakeholders that allow them to meet goals efficiently and effectively (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
At Bailey Canyon College, like at many colleges, professional development, shared
governance, and campus engagement opportunities are more available to full-time faculty than
part-time faculty. With a large percentage of classes being taught by adjunct faculty, there is a
concern about the role of adjunct faculty on community college campuses like Bailey Canyon. A
growing body of research identifies a need to better facilitate and implement opportunities for
adjunct faculty to connect to the school, with the underlying assumption that these faculty
members are a critical part of improving student outcomes (Center for Community College
Student Engagement, 2014; Fagan-Wilen et al., 2006; Kezar, 2012; McLaughlin, 2005). To
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
22
most effectively implement change, an analysis of the knowledge and motivation gaps that
hinder inclusion in campus culture is necessary.
Knowledge can be described as factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive
(Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Factual knowledge refers to information that can be learned,
memorized, and recalled. Factual knowledge requires that the learner be given information that
they may not have had previously and then that they can recall and utilize this information when
needed (Krathwohl, 2002). Conceptual knowledge is more complex in that the learner begins to
make connections and understand relationships between ideas. This type of knowledge requires
critical thinking (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Procedural knowledge is the know-how.
Procedural knowledge is demonstrated when employees use factual knowledge and apply it to
performing tasks (Krathwohl, 2002). Finally, metacognitive knowledge is reflective; it is
described as knowing what we know, or understanding our own knowledge. Metacognition
captures the learner’s ability to be reflective about their knowledge and to adjust their approach
to learning to maximize learning outcomes (Mayer, 2011).
Factual knowledge of mission and values. To successfully connect with an
organization and to more fully participate in the achievement of organizational goals, it is
important for a learner to know the organization. In community college settings, this knowledge
lies at several levels: the institutional level, the division level, the department level, and even at
the classroom level. Adjunct faculty may be content matter experts in the subjects they teach but
are less likely than other faculty and staff members to have knowledge of the institution itself
(Meixner et al., 2010). Furthermore, since adjunct faculty are less likely to participate in
professional development on campus, they may not be exposed to knowledge that would be
described as factual: the mission, the vision, the core values, the current initiatives and the
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
23
priorities of the institution (Spaniel & Scott, 2013). Mayer (2011) referred to this knowledge as
information acquisition, where learners receive input and are able to effectively recall the
information as needed. For adjunct faculty, this is foundational to understanding their institution
and their role in it.
Conceptual knowledge of institutional structure. Adjunct faculty may have limited
opportunities to engage with upper management, other departments or divisions, and classified
staff across campus (Kezar & Sam, 2013; Spaniel & Scott, 2013). Consequently, they may not
have a sense of how the pieces fit together. This type of knowledge is conceptual. At the factual
level, adjunct faculty may benefit from knowing who the key players are, and knowing how the
institution has organized its departments. Conceptual knowledge is what allows a faculty
member to see the big picture and interconnections between the different programs, departments,
divisions, and personnel. Adjunct faculty may be less likely to know where to direct students for
support services or where to direct their own inquiries about institutional protocols. The factual
knowledge of the institution coupled with the conceptual knowledge of how it all fits together
would likely allow adjunct faculty to feel more connected to the college (Kezar, 2012).
Procedural knowledge on engagement. Procedural knowledge directs the question of
“how” (Krathwohl, 2002). In other words, once faculty members understand how the college
works and how others are engaged, they can next ask themselves what they need to do to become
engaged. Not all opportunities for engagement are open to adjunct faculty, which is often cited
by adjunct members as a reason they are not connected to the institution (Dolan et al., 2013).
Adjunct faculty members may be given the impression that they are not critical stakeholders and
may even be treated as if they do not belong (McLaughlin, 2005). For adjunct faculty members,
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
24
it is important to transfer their knowledge of the institutional structure and protocols to identify
where and how they can effectively engage.
Influence of procedural knowledge of decision-making. For many colleges and
universities, the academic senate is one of the key bodies for decision-making. However, unions,
work-groups, committees, and boards are other entities engaged in decision-making (Kezar,
2012). These bodies do not just serve as a place for adjunct faculty to be, but a mechanism for
including an adjunct voice in the institution. Adjunct faculty often do not have the procedural
knowledge of how decisions are made or of where they can effect change (Meixner et al., 2010).
While adjunct faculty may engage in making a difference in their students’ lives through
classroom instruction, the procedural knowledge of decision-making mechanisms would allow
adjunct faculty to participate on an institutional level (Kezar & Sam, 2013). Increased
understanding of decision-making and the ability to have a voice in the institution would address
the widespread feelings of disconnect among adjuncts (Kezar & Sam, 2013).
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
25
Table 2
Knowledge Influences, Knowledge Types and Knowledge Influence Assessment
Organizational Mission
Bailey Canyon College enriches students’ lives by providing educational opportunities
including transfer to four-year institutions, associate degrees, and certificates. The College
is dedicated to supporting the success of students, engaging in equity-minded practices, and
demonstrating core values of excellence, integrity, collegiality, and inclusiveness.
Organizational Global Goal
By October 2021, 100% of faculty, managers, and staff at Bailey Canyon College would
report a sense of collegiality and a means for being involved and connected to the institution.
Adjunct Faculty Goal
By October 2021, 100% of regularly-scheduled adjunct faculty will report that they feel
included in campus-wide decision making on the campus climate survey.
Knowledge Influence
Knowledge Type (i.e.,
declarative (factual or
conceptual), procedural,
or metacognitive)
Knowledge Influence
Assessment
Adjunct faculty need to know
the mission and core values of
the institution.
Factual Adjunct faculty identify key
premises of the mission and
values.
Adjunct faculty need to
understand the organizational
structure of the institution,
including committees and shared
governance.
Conceptual Adjunct faculty identify key
organizational structures of
the institution.
Adjunct faculty need to
understand how they can engage
with the campus community.
Conceptual Adjunct faculty identify
committees, workgroups, or
appointments where they
might choose to engage in
the campus community.
Adjunct faculty need to
understand the process for how
stakeholders are included in
decision-making.
Procedural Adjunct faculty describe the
mechanisms by which
stakeholder groups
participate in shared
governance and committees.
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
26
Motivation
Clark and Estes (2008) explore motivation as being made up of active choice,
persistence, and mental effort. They argue that the evaluation of organizational performance
problems must include an understanding of gaps in motivation for stakeholders. Clark and Estes
(2008) describe active choice and the stakeholder’s initiation of work toward an organizational
goal or task. Persistence is described as one’s continuing with a task or toward a goal when
challenges arise. Mental effort refers to one’s willingness or ability to invest and work toward
success on a task (Clark & Estes, 2008). Adjunct faculty report lack of inclusion in their
institutions (Diegel, 2013; Dolan et al., 2013). As a stakeholder, it would be valuable to better
understand the adjunct faculty efforts to include themselves in campus culture by understanding
their own active choice, persistence, and mental effort. Attribution theory and self-efficacy
theory allow for explorations of the motivation of adjunct faculty to engage in the community
college campus and the role of active choice, persistence, and mental effort in faculty motivation.
Attribution theory. Weiner’s (1972) attribution theory focuses on why individuals
respond differently to an event. Specifically, attribution theory explores motivation by
attempting to understand how individuals attribute meaning and causality (Anderman &
Anderman, 2006). Attribution theory focuses on three dimensions of one’s attributions: locus,
stability, and controllability (Weiner, 1972). Locus is defined as being internal or external.
Locus gets to the question of whether the learner believes that outcomes are dependent on one’s
own behavior or outside of one’s own control. An internal locus of control is associated with
enhanced self-worth and efficacy, while reliance on an external locus of control is associated
with decreased feelings of worth and self-esteem (Anderman & Anderman, 2006). Stability
refers to whether or not the cause is seen as stable or variable over time (Anderman &
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
27
Anderman, 2006). Controllability refers to whether or not the cause is perceived as within the
control of the individual (Anderman & Anderman, 2006). Attribution theory would suggest that
if adjunct faculty believe that they are not included in institutional culture and decision-making
as a result of only forces beyond their control, this attribution would negatively affect adjunct
perceptions of their workplace. Furthermore, the belief that one cannot do anything to change
their level of inclusion and engagement would quite possibly be an indicator of an active choice
or mental effort motivation challenge. By contrast, if adjunct faculty communicate a need and
desire to be a part of the college culture and that shared information results in change, adjunct
faculty are more likely to see themselves as agents of change.
Utility value theory. Utility value refers to the belief in the personal value and
usefulness of engagement (Schraw & Lehman, 2009). According to Schraw and Lehman (2009),
building upon personal interest can increase motivation. Additionally, individuals are motivated
by their sense of personal benefit. If adjunct faculty members cannot see benefits in contributing
to the college, they are less likely to feel motivated. For adjunct faculty members, their
individual sense that they can effect change is important to being motivated by a sense of
usefulness of the task. Adjunct faculty members may be more motivated to engage when they
sense that collectively their input, engagement and voice matters to the institution and to student
outcomes (Gappa & Leslie, 2002). Furthermore, an adjunct faculty member who can connect
their college engagement with their own professional development goals might be more
motivated to participate. These goals may include recognition, a greater sense of professional
identity, or an increased likelihood of being offered classes or full-time opportunities as a result
of their involvement.
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
28
Table 3
Assumed Motivation Influences and Motivational Influence Assessment
Organizational Mission
Bailey Canyon College enriches students’ lives by providing educational opportunities
including transfer to four-year institutions, associate degrees, and certificates. The College
is dedicated to supporting the success of students, engaging in equity-minded practices, and
demonstrating core values of excellence, integrity, collegiality, and inclusiveness.
Organizational Global Goal
By October 2021, 100% of faculty, managers, and staff at Bailey Canyon College would
report a sense of collegiality and a means for being involved and connected to the institution.
Stakeholder Goal
By October 2021, 100% of regularly-scheduled adjunct faculty will report that they are
motivated to participate in the college culture through committee membership, workgroups,
or campus-wide events.
Assumed Motivation Influences Motivational Influence Assessment
Attributions — Adjunct faculty need
to feel that they have input into
institutional decision-making.
Written survey item: “I believe that I could make a
contribution to the community by sharing my
perspective, experience, or knowledge.” (strongly
disagree – strongly agree)
Utility Value — Adjunct faculty
need to see personal value in making
contributions to the college culture.
Written survey item: “I see value in my participation
in college activities outside of the classroom.”
(strongly disagree – strongly agree)
Organizational Influences
This study addresses the problem of adjunct faculty who feel isolated or disconnected
from the culture, protocols, and decision-making of the community colleges at which they teach.
The evidence highlights the inequities experienced by adjunct faculty when they are peripheral
or marginalized, and when institutions fail to include adjunct faculty in policy, program
modification, and governance (Kezar & Sam, 2013; Meixner et al., 2010). Though needs for
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
29
skill development, mentoring, and orientation are expressed by adjunct faculty, an additional
emerging theme is a sense of community disconnect (Meixner et al., 2010; Morton, 2012).
Much of the research on adjunct faculty focuses on the adjuncts themselves, honing in on issues
like classroom management, instructional skills, and grading (Fagan-Wilen et al., 2006;
McLaughlin, 2005). However, additional research suggests that institutional change is necessary
for addressing adjunct issues of isolation and disconnect by increasing the inclusion and voice of
adjunct faculty members (Meixner et al., 2010; Morton, 2012). This section will explore the
organizational influences that affect adjunct inclusion in campus culture and the intersection
between these organizational influences and the knowledge and motivation gaps that hinder
adjunct faculty from participating more fully in their campus culture.
Perceptions of adjunct faculty.
Sense of belonging on campus. Meixner et al. (2010) identified fundamental resources
important to adjuncts, such as office space, a mailbox, and adequate parking. These resources
are critical to adjunct faculty and influence the likelihood that adjunct faculty will spend time on
campus outside of their scheduled class times. Interacting with administration, full-time faculty,
and college staff members happens outside of an adjunct faculty member’s instructional time.
Where colleges do not have a place for adjunct faculty to be, such as office space or a faculty
lounge, they will likely spend less time on campus, resulting in a lower likelihood that they will
feel motivated to engage and that they will feel included in the college culture (Meixner et al.,
2010).
Professional development opportunities. There is substantial evidence that adjunct
faculty lack opportunities for professional development alongside their full-time colleagues. The
relationships between culture, resources, and teaching capacity are intertwined and complex.
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
30
The problem goes beyond giving faculty some training or tools to make them better. For
example, adjunct faculty need mentoring, not just to improve their teaching, but to establish
relationships with other campus professionals (Diegel, 2013). Adjunct faculty need the same
types of professional development opportunities as their full-time faculty peers, again, not just to
allow them to teach better, but to connect adjunct faculty to the institution. Dolan et al. (2013)
concluded that adjunct faculty felt more connected to the college culture when budgets and
professional development agendas acknowledge the needs of adjunct faculty. Professional
development provides adjunct faculty with knowledge of the institution, but also affects
professional identity, which may, in turn, positively impact an adjunct faculty member’s
motivation to engage and connect to the institution.
Communication with adjunct faculty. Adjunct faculty need consistent and ongoing
communication with management, division/department chairs, and full-time faculty peers. In
interviews with adjunct faculty, Diegel (2013) found that many adjunct faculty reported that they
felt supported by department chairpersons when there was regular and strong communication
that included adjunct faculty. When adjunct faculty do not receive adequate support via verbal
and written communication, they feel less connected to the institution.
Policies and procedures. One factor in creating an inclusive culture for adjunct faculty is
whether adjunct faculty participate in the shared governance and campus programs available on
campus. Most commonly, adjunct faculty lack substantial roles in shared governance (Kezar &
Sam, 2013). Furthermore, they do not representatively serve on campus committees or
participate in other decision-making bodies (Meixner et al., 2010). Involvement in shared
governance and committee membership ultimately equates to having a voice in campus affairs
which, in turn, affects how connected adjunct faculty members feel to the college culture (Kezar
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
31
& Sam, 2013; Meixner et al., 2010). When adjunct faculty participate in the college in this way,
they gain institutional knowledge and are likely more motivated to continue to engage in college
activities outside of instructional time.
College policies have been found to affect teaching quality and outcomes (Meixner et al.,
2010; Spaniel & Scott, 2013). In some cases, institutions have designated seats on Academic
Senate and other decision-making bodies specifically for adjunct faculty. Other institutions have
policies and practices that designate funds for professional development or extra pay for college-
related projects. Adjunct faculty have reported a greater sense of inclusion and feel more valued
at institutions that have been intentional about implementing supportive policies such as these
aimed to enhance adjunct faculty engagement (Kezar & Sam, 2013). Institutions that proactively
took a role in creating a positive culture for adjunct faculty were not only creating a framework
for providing needed resources, but were symbolically signaling that they value the contributions
and expertise of their adjunct faculty (Kezar, 2012; Kezar & Sam, 2013; Meixner et al., 2010).
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation
and the Organizational Context
The theoretical framework is described as the “underlying structure, the scaffolding or
frame of a study” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 85). It refers to the lens or theoretical framework
that can be used to explore the phenomena (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). For the purpose of this
study, it is presumed that the culture of the organization influences the stakeholders. This
relationship, though, is reciprocal; the knowledge and motivation of the adjunct faculty affect the
organization. Although knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on the adjunct
faculty experiences of inclusion are described and presented independent of one another, these
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
32
factors interact in significant ways. Adjunct faculty make up a significant percentage of the
faculty at Bailey Canyon College, making this an important stakeholder group.
Figure 1. The connection between adjunct faculty knowledge and motivation, organizational
models, and stakeholder goals.
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
33
The college culture sets the tone for how administration and faculty think about adjunct
faculty. The resulting status of adjunct faculty on campus affects the resources provided for
adjunct professional development. Furthermore, perceptions of adjunct faculty impact the way
that administration and full-time faculty communicate with adjunct faculty. As depicted in
Figure 1, adjunct faculty sit within this organizational setting. As a result of the organizational
culture, adjunct faculty may demonstrate deficits in institutional knowledge and gaps in
motivation to engage in activities at the college. When the organizational culture supports the
development of adjunct knowledge and motivation, adjunct faculty are more likely to report
feeling included in the culture of the college, as represented by the arrow toward the stakeholder
goal.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
Surveys
This study was conducted using a mixed methods approach, first with the collection of
quantitative data via Qualtrics survey, followed by a focus group. The survey was a
modification of a campus climate survey already administered by the Bailey Canyon College
Office of Institutional Research every two years. It was last modified and administered in Fall
2017. The original validated survey covers a wide range of topics, some of which are related to
inclusion, decision-making, and satisfaction with various aspects of the college culture and work
environment. The original survey targets all employees of the college and has never
disaggregated full-time and adjunct faculty responses. The original survey does not follow a
KMO model. For this study, the survey included some of the questions from the original survey,
but additional questions were added to address the research questions more completely. The
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
34
survey was piloted with a select group of higher education faculty, research office personnel, and
managers prior to full implementation.
After piloting, the survey was sent to employee email addresses via Qualtrics and
included informed consent information. The study utilized a census approach. A census
approach allows the researcher to recruit and study every person in the population (Johnson &
Christensen, 2013). Because the survey was sent out via email initiated by the research
department, all adjunct faculty could be accessed through college-assigned email addresses.
Adjunct faculty members are contractually required to check their email at least once per week,
allowing every active adjunct faculty member to participate if they are willing. The survey
included questions about the faculty members’ employment status, allowing the researcher to
qualify participants against the established criteria.
At any given time, Bailey Canyon College employs approximately 400 adjunct faculty
members, a number that was decreased by the number of employees who do not meet the
established criteria as described in Appendix A. Efforts were made to increase response rate by
sending reminders to non-responders, by being clear in describing safeguards to respondent
privacy, and by communicating how data would be used (Fink, 2013). One hundred fourteen
faculty members responded. The response rate was likely negatively affected by the timing of
the survey administration, as faculty members were close to the final exam period, followed by
summer break when many adjunct faculty are not assigned classes and may be less likely to
check email. The quantitative data collection described was the first part of an explanatory
sequential approach to data collection in which quantitative data is followed by qualitative data
collection and then interpreted (Creswell, 2014). At the end of the survey, respondents had the
opportunity to indicate an interest in being contacted to participate in a focus group.
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
35
Focus Groups
The purpose of the focus group component was to support interpretation of the previously
obtained quantitative result (Johnson & Christensen, 2013). Focus groups allowed adjunct
faculty members to further share their experience and triangulate the data collected through the
survey. Participants in the quantitative survey were invited via email to participate in a follow-
up focus group to further explore the experiences of inclusion in college culture. The focus
group facilitator was a colleague skilled in facilitating group discussion and not the principal
researcher due to the reporting relationship of some potential adjunct faculty participants.
Additionally, the focus group facilitator is a faculty member at a different college familiar with
the topic, research questions, and literature review. The focus group facilitator explained
informed consent to participants before beginning questions and discussion, reminding
participants that their participation was completely voluntary, that their data would remain
confidential and safeguarded, and that they could end their participation at any time. In order to
protect the anonymity and confidentiality of the participants, the focus groups were recorded via
audio recording, transcribed by an outside company, rev.com, and scrubbed for identifying
information prior to being made available to the primary researcher.
There was a total of six focus group participants. Ideally, the focus groups would have
been larger by one or two participants each in order to further encourage sharing of ideas
(Johnson & Christensen, 2013). The groups were homogeneous in that, while they represented a
wide range of disciplines, all participants work for the college in an adjunct faculty capacity.
This group homogeneity promoted discussion around common themes and experiences at Bailey
Canyon College (Johnson & Christensen, 2013).
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
36
Sample
There were two samples for this study, though the same population was eligible to
participate in the survey and the focus group. Ninety-one adjunct faculty members completed
the survey. Of those, six respondents also participated in focus group.
Survey participants. For the quantitative survey, 394 potential respondents met the
criterion of having taught a class for Bailey Canyon College in the Spring 2019 semester. The
eligible candidates decreased to 346 based on the criterion of having completed teaching at least
one class at Bailey Canyon College. The quantitative survey was sent via email to 346 potential
respondents. Of those, 114 responded to the survey. Based on meeting criteria and
completeness, 91 respondents were included in the final sample, resulting in a response rate of
26%.
Survey participants were 30% male and 70% female. Figure 2 depicts the participant
identification of their race, with 3% identifying at African-American, 18% identifying as Asian,
20% identifying as Hispanic/Latino, 53% identifying as White, and 6% identifying as some other
race. There are eight academic divisions at Bailey Canyon College. Participation by division is
depicted in Figure 3.
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
37
Figure 2. Race of respondents.
Figure 3. Respondent discipline affiliation.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
African American Asian Hispanic White Other
Race of Respondents (n=91)
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Business
Career Technical
Counseling
Fine Arts
Health Sciences
Kinesiology
Language Arts
Science, Engineering, Math
Social Sciences
Respondent Discipline Affiliation
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
38
As depicted in Figure 4, 70% of survey respondents reported that they would choose to
be full-time faculty, rather than adjunct if given the opportunity. Another 10% reported that they
choose their part-time status because they hold a full-time job elsewhere. Twenty percent
indicated that they choose to work part-time because it meets their personal needs for some other
reason such as childcare or semi-retirement status.
Figure 4. Part-time faculty employment type.
Survey respondents were asked about their years of teaching experience. Figure 5 shows
the years of teaching experience reported by survey respondents, with 8% of respondents
indicating that they had been teaching at a community college for less than one year. Sixteen
percent had been teaching for 1–2 years, 25% had been teaching for 3–5 years, 22% had been
teaching for 6–10 years, and 29% had been teaching for 11 years or more. Figure 6 depicts the
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Part-time Faculty Employment Type
Prefer FT Status FT Job Elsewhere PT by Choice
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
39
reported number of years that respondents had been teaching at Bailey Canyon College, with
30% having taught at Bailey Canyon College for less than one year, 20% for 1–2 years, 22% for
3–5 years, 13% for 6–10 years, and 15% for 11 or more years. Of the 91 respondents, 59%
indicated that they work at more than one college, while 41% reported that Bailey Canyon
College is their only college.
Figure 5. Years of teaching experience.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Years of T eaching Experience (n=91)
Less than 1 Year 1-2 Years 3-5 Years 6-10 Years 11 or More Years
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
40
Figure 6. Years of teaching experience at Bailey Canyon College.
Focus group participants. From the quantitative survey, 14 individuals indicated that
they would be willing to participate in a focus group. They were each invited to participate in
one of three focus group times. Of the 14, only six participants were ultimately available to
come during a focus group time and only two of the scheduled three focus groups had
participants. Efforts were made to offer focus group times when college faculty would least
likely have conflicts with teaching schedules at Bailey Canyon College. Nonetheless, many
willing participants indicated that they had conflicts during the focus group times because of
teaching assignments at other campuses, childcare demands, or prohibitive drive times to
participate on a non-teaching day.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Years T eaching at Bailey Canyon College (n=91)
Less than 1 Year 1-2 Years 3-5 Years 6-10 Years 11 or More Years
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
41
An important aspect of this research study was to protect the anonymity of the focus
group participants, including using a focus group facilitator who was not associated with the
college. As a result, the facilitator shared limited demographic information with the researcher
about the focus group participants. Of the six participants, two were male and four were female.
Adjunct faculty from Language Arts, Social Sciences, Fine Arts, and Counseling were
represented in focus groups. Transcriptions of the focus groups provided identification of
speakers by number and provided identification of male and female speakers. Focus group
participants sometimes identified other details of their relationship with and positionality to the
college during their focus group experience. For example, some focus group members shared
information about their length of service and unique details about their role at the college which
are represented in the findings.
Findings
Several themes emerged from the collection of survey and focus group data from adjunct
faculty participants. Knowledge, motivation and organizational gaps related to the problem of
practice were identified. Adjunct faculty shared their knowledge, experiences and opinions of
serving the students and the institution in an adjunct role. They also identified potential barriers
to their inclusion in the college culture.
Knowledge
Knowledge gaps were explored in four areas. Adjunct faculty were asked about their
understanding of the organizational mission, values, priorities, and initiatives. They were also
asked about their understanding of the college organizational structure. Adjunct faculty
members shared their knowledge of how to engage in the college should they choose to be
involved. Lastly, they shared their knowledge of how institutional decisions are made.
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
42
Mission and core values. In response to a survey item that asked respondents about
their knowledge of the institution’s mission and core values, 72% of adjunct faculty members
reported that they were familiar or somewhat familiar with the mission and core values of the
organization. However, there was a gap between the quantitative survey item and the qualitative
data that asked respondents to recall specific details about the mission and core values of the
institution. In both an open-ended survey item and in focus group responses, participants had
some difficulty articulating the mission and core values of the institution, with many indicating
that they did not know or that they had been told at some time, but did not remember. For
example, one respondent indicated, “I haven’t had time to get into that,” and another indicated,
“Sorry, I don’t know that. I’m only asked to teach.”
Twenty survey respondents focused on academic goals as the central feature of the
mission and values, including transfer to a four-year university or program completion. Two
recurring themes in the qualitative data on mission and values were opportunity and equity.
Fifteen respondents who completed the open-ended survey items articulated the institutional
emphasis of equity in their response.
It is possible that the discrepancy between the respondents’ sense that they know the
organizational mission and values and their inability to articulate that knowledge might be
connected to the fact that 59% of respondents teach at more than one college. Adjunct faculty
may have a general sense of organizational goals and understand why they teach students at the
community college level, while being unable to articulate the mission, goals, and values of any
particular institution at which they work.
Organizational structure. Forty-nine percent of respondents indicated that they were
familiar or somewhat familiar with the organizational structure of the College. A common
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
43
theme emerged in focus groups with respect to understanding organizational structure.
Specifically, respondents described their roles and those within their division or department, but
expressed little knowledge about the larger organizational structure. Every focus group
participant who addressed organizational structure differentiated between a micro-level
understanding and a macro-level understanding. For example, Participant 4 indicated that after
three semesters at the college, she still had a limited understanding of the organizational
structure. She described her understanding of the college structure, stating,
There’s adjunct faculty that I would say, yeah, we’re at the bottom of the totem pole.
And then there’s the full-time faculty, so there’s about three [in my department]. One of
them is the chair of the department. And then we have our office people and the dean, of
course, kind of overseeing all of that . . . but then from there it gets a little bit ambiguous
for me to know what the structure is.
Participant 5 also described himself as relatively new to the college, and described his
understanding similarly in saying, “as far as the leadership goes, I’ve seen the president of the
campus but as far as my interaction goes it’s usually the Dean and . . . the department chair and
that’s pretty much as far as it goes with me.” Focus group members were likely to indicate that
they had some sense of who the College President is, and that there are one or more Vice
Presidents unknown to them. Upper management was discussed as something very distant, with
few respondents being able to identify the college leadership and still fewer having ever
interacted with the college leaders.
The focus group data suggested that it may have been helpful to differentiate the survey
question pertaining to organizational structure in order to explore this differentiation between
organizational structure at the division level versus the understanding of the college-wide or even
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
44
district organizational structure. Based on focus group feedback, it appeared that most
communication about the college was originating from the department coordinators or the deans,
limiting the adjunct faculty understanding of the college as a whole. Only 49% of survey
respondents indicated that they have an understanding of the organizational structure.
How adjunct faculty engage in campus community. Forty-seven percent of survey
participants indicated that if they wanted to get involved in the campus community outside of the
classroom, they would know how to get involved. Similarly, respondents indicated that if there
were a specific committee that they wanted to join, 54% would know how to proceed. Focus
group participants focused less on the knowledge of how to engage on campus and more on the
organizational culture of participation. Participant 2 did not indicate how long she had been at
Bailey Canyon College, but summed up the knowledge she had gained of how to engage, stating,
I do know that there’s committees. However, I don’t know how they get chosen to be a
committee. It seems like only full-timers are part of the committees, which makes me
think twice about the decisions that are being made because sometimes it doesn’t always
. . . it’ll favor whatever the full time is, rather than considering a part time perspective
from certain decisions that are being made.
By contrast, Participant 1 was very clear in her understanding about how adjunct faculty could
engage in the college. She said,
The possibilities are endless. We can choose to be involved in almost any way. Starting
a club and advising a club, I mean joining a committee that needs extra hands, a
professional development committee . . . the academic senate, being an adjunct rep.
Yeah. There are a lot of different ways that we could choose to be more involved.
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
45
However, it is worth noting that Participant 1 differentiated herself from other adjuncts in that
she had held a different role as a staff member in a program at the college prior to working as an
adjunct faculty member. Consequently, Participant 1 indicated that she likely had more
knowledge than most adjunct faculty and that her prior role and not her work as an adjunct was a
significant factor in her college knowledge. Participant 1 also indicated that she had previously
served on the Professional Development committee and indicated that that experience had a
positive impact on her overall institutional knowledge. Similarly, Participant 6 worked in the
classroom as an instructional adjunct faculty member, but also filled a role as a Counselor. She
too believed that her multiple college roles had impacted her knowledge.
The discrepancy between the experiences of focus group members in developing
knowledge about campus involvement opportunities highlights a potentially important
consideration. Greater exposure to multiple facets of the college creates knowledge. Those who
had opportunities beyond their teaching assignment were more likely to know how to further
engage in the college, which of course, begets more knowledge. Opportunity and knowledge of
the college affect one another in a reciprocal manner.
Understanding of the decision-making process. As depicted in Figure 7, of the 84
survey respondents who answered the question, 15% strongly agreed that they had an
understanding of how college decisions were made, 32% somewhat agreed, 31% were neutral or
unsure, 16% somewhat disagreed, and 6% strongly disagreed with the statement. With 47% of
survey respondents strongly or somewhat agreeing, there appears to be opportunity to support
adjunct faculty in learning about how college decisions are made.
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
46
Figure 7. Survey responses to “I have an understanding of how decisions are made at the
college.”
Focus group participants reinforced the findings of the quantitative survey. A recurring
theme among adjunct faculty was that they didn’t know how decisions were made, or that they
had a sense of how division and department decisions get made, but not how more institutional
decisions get made. Participant 6 indicated that she had worked at the college for many years,
but still echoed what other members also articulated. She said,
who makes choices about what happens at this community college for example, I mean in
our department, our Dean and Chair and the full-time faculty mostly I think, are the ones
who make choices about what happens at our department. But I honestly don’t know
who does what on this campus, beyond our chair and dean.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral/Unsure Disagree Strongly Disgaree
Survey Responses to “I have an understanding of how decisions
are made at the college.”
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
47
Though respondents indicated that they did not really know how decisions were made, especially
larger institutional decisions, focus group participants did articulate their sense that
administration and not faculty drive critical decisions. Participant 4 said,
I think it’s probably more administrative . . . that’s how it feels like. Again, I’m not
100% sure, but that’s what it feels like. Because I’ve never seen it otherwise. They
include their full time, so it’s probably a combination of their full time, and then admin.
In some instances, I’ve heard, “This is going to go through regardless of what anyone
else says because it’s just how it is.”
Participant 3 weighed in on the assessment provided by Participant 4, saying that he believed that
the balance of decision-making was probably about 80/20 administration to faculty voice.
Despite general perceptions about the administration versus faculty balance in decision-making,
67% of the focus group participants verbalized that they were not aware of processes beyond
their own department or division.
Both survey data and focus group data suggest that there are adjunct gaps in institutional
knowledge. Adjunct faculty might benefit from additional knowledge about the institutional
mission, values, goals, and priorities, as well as the organizational structure. Furthermore,
adjunct faculty were not sure how to engage with the college, unless they had served in some
other college role. Adjunct faculty reported a lack knowledge of how institutional decisions are
made and by whom.
Motivation
Faculty participants indicated that motivation hinged on their sense that their contribution
would be welcome. Another important motivational factor was a sense of being valued. Faculty
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
48
members were motivated by their sense that their contribution to the college made a difference,
for students, for the institution, and for themselves.
Adjunct beliefs about their role in institutional decision-making. Adjunct faculty
participants were asked if they believe that their voice in institutional decision-making matters.
As depicted in Figure 8, 62% of survey respondent reported that they strongly agreed or
somewhat agreed that their institutional involvement matters for student outcomes. Sixty-seven
percent see value in their participation in the college.
Weiner’s (1972) attribution theory assesses how individuals attribute meaning and
causality. Consistent with attribution theory, the majority of survey participants connect their
involvement in the college to student outcomes. From the frame of attribution theory, motivation
is impacted by whether the individual believes that outcomes are dependent on his or her
behavior (Weiner, 1972). In the case of college involvement, the data suggests that the majority
of participating faculty members believe that their choice to participate does affect outcomes.
However, this variable is intricately connected to the organizational variable of whether adjunct
faculty members have opportunities to engage in ways that they believe will have impact.
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
49
Figure 8. Survey responses to “I believe my involvement in the college campus outside of the
classroom makes a difference for students.”
Adjunct beliefs about the value of engaging in the college. While 62% of the
responding adjunct faculty strongly agreed or somewhat agreed that they believe that their
contributions to the college are valuable to students, only 48% of respondents believe that their
contributions to the College outside of the classroom are valued by the college. Among focus
group participants, three respondents reported that their motivation to be involved was related to
their beliefs about institutional barriers to inclusion. There was some sense of feeling defeated.
Participant 2 spoke about campus involvement, reinforcing responses from other participants
when she said,
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly Disagree Don't Know
Survey Responses to “I believe my involvement in the college campus
outside of the classroom makes a difference for students.”
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
50
Well, mostly I’m just in and out teaching the class. I don’t have an office. I don’t have a
place to do work. So, from my perspective, it’s like, well, why would I invest in this
school if they’re not going to invest in me?
Participant 2 identified herself as a “freeway flyer,” a term commonly used to describe adjunct
faculty members who piece together careers by working for several different colleges, thus
spending much of their time in transit between campuses. Freeway flyers may experience
college cultures differently than other types of adjunct faculty. With limited available time to
spend on any particular campus, their sense of the value of their participation outside of the
classroom may be different. Data from both the survey and focus groups suggest support for the
fundamental proposition of utility value theory, that individuals must have a sense of the
personal value and usefulness of the engagement in order to be motivated (Schraw & Lehman,
2009).
Organizational
Survey participants identified organizational barriers that affect a sense of inclusion in the
college culture. Focus group participants reinforced many of the themes that came to light in the
survey, but also pinpointed barriers more specifically. One of challenges that surfaced was a
general feeling about the sense of belonging, which manifested differently to different people.
Other themes were more specific, targeting barriers such as lack of professional development,
limited communication, and the need for policies and procedures that enhance inclusion.
Sense of belonging. Responding adjunct faculty members were mixed in their responses
to questions about their sense of belonging within the college culture. Forty-seven percent of
respondents reported that they believed strongly or somewhat strongly that the college has a
strong team spirit. However, only 10% disagreed that the college had a sense of team spirit,
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
51
leaving more than 40% as neutral or undecided. Likewise, only 20% of respondents indicated
that they believed that their contributions were considered and valued, but 50% of the
respondents reported that they were neutral or did not know if their contributions were
considered and valued. The focus group results were similarly mixed. While three respondents
used words like “warm,” “welcoming,” and “familial,” to describe the culture, two respondents
used words like “distant,” “disconnected,” and “discouraging.” Two key variables seemed to
evolve as factors in how respondents perceived the college culture. First, when discussing the
culture with a department or division, responses were much more favorable than when describing
the campus culture as a whole. Second, respondents who spoke most favorably about the college
culture were more likely to be connected to the college in some other way beyond their role as
adjunct faculty. For example, Participant 6 was in the counseling division and worked both in
the classroom and also as part of the counseling department outside of the classroom. Participant
1 indicated that her ties to the college were built when she held a prior job on campus within a
college program, so that the connection to the college was built before her role became that of an
adjunct. In both cases, these experiences supported beliefs about the respondents’ sense of
community.
By contrast, those focus group participants who spoke more negatively about the college
culture indicated the need for community, but pointed to barriers in developing a sense of
community. One theme that emerged was the lack of opportunity to interact with colleagues.
Even more specifically, focus group participants addressed a need for physical space that is
conducive to staying on campus outside of instructional time and interacting with colleagues.
Despite her reportedly stronger connection to the college, Participant 1 noted, “there's not a
physical place really, like a lounge or a comfortable area for us to meet.” The barriers to
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
52
collegiality and a sense of inclusiveness were noted to be both attitudinal, how adjunct faculty
are treated, and also structural, related to the physical spaces and lay-out of the campus.
Despite the expressed need for a sense of community, over 60% of respondents strongly
agreed or somewhat agreed that they felt respected by administration (61%), faculty (64%), and
staff (70%). In the qualitative analysis, a similar trend emerged that separated the divisions and
departments from the college as a whole. Respondents were more likely to report that they felt
respected and well regarded by their own department full-time faculty, their assigned dean, and
their area office staff, than when they were reflected on the college-wide faculty and staff.
Professional development opportunities. Fifty percent of respondents answered
strongly agree or somewhat agree to the question of whether adequate professional development
opportunities exist for adjunct faculty aimed at communicating the mission, values, or key
initiatives of the college. Meixner et al. (2010) highlighted the important interplay between
adjunct faculty knowledge and the institutional emphasis on providing faculty with the
mechanisms for increasing organizational knowledge. The survey data points to the need for
professional development opportunities that enhance adjunct faculty members’ institutional
knowledge.
Diegel (2013) highlighted the value of professional development for the purpose of
developing relationships within the campus community. Kezar and Sam (2013) also suggested
that a common organizational barrier for adjunct faculty is the limited amount of opportunity
available for adjunct faculty to engage with colleagues and upper management. As depicted in
Figure 9, 45% of survey respondents strongly agreed or somewhat agreed that there were
adequate professional development opportunities provided that would allow for meaningful
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
53
engagement with colleagues, while 22% disagreed and 33% were unsure or didn’t know,
suggesting an organizational opportunity to address this gap.
The focus group analysis yielded a wide range of perspectives on professional
development. The focus group responses helped to clarify that professional development may
mean something different to each respondent. Specifically, focus group participants
differentiated between campus or district sponsored professional development from opportunities
to attend conferences or workshops with college financial support.
Figure 9. Survey response to “There are adequate opportunities for adjunct faculty to
meaningfully engage with their colleagues.”
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly Disagree Don't Know
Survey Response to “There are adequate opportunities for adjunct faculty
to meaningfully engage with their colleagues.”
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
54
Campus sponsored professional development. While half of the focus group participants
indicated that there were adequate professional development activities for adjunct faculty, they
also indicated that there were barriers to participation. On professional development, Participant
1 said, “it's obvious that they [the professional development committee] are very passionate
about making more available to us and letting us know about it.” It is important to note that
Participant 1 had served on the Professional Development committee and had substantial
knowledge about how the committee operates. However, Participant 1 indicated that she
believed that adjunct faculty should get paid for participation. Furthermore, she indicated that
adjunct faculty get so many invitations to participate in professional development and, given that
most are unpaid opportunities, it would be more effective for the dean to indicate two or three of
the most important opportunities in order to enhance participation and learning.
Other focus group participants disagreed that college-sponsored professional
development opportunities were adequate, indicating that most opportunities are created with
full-time faculty in mind. Long drive times to attend, lack of paid professional development
opportunities, and conflicts with teaching obligations were common barriers to participation.
One emergent theme was a strong belief in the value of professional development. As
Participant 5 indicated,
The professional development is not necessarily even for the instructor; it’s for the
students. And if you’re student-centric then you would have great professional
development in my opinion. Everybody has to be included otherwise it doesn’t make a
big enough impact and you’re just wasting money. To be honest, most of your part-time
faculty are the people who need the professional development, who need to know about
new things because lots of the people who have been here 20, 30 years they already know
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
55
what they’re doing. And most of your younger faculty or newer to the industry type of
faculty they would benefit far more than your 30-year tenured professor. They would
have much greater impact on their classroom as well. I find all those things to be very
important.
Participant 5 indicated a greater need for professional development that caters to adjunct faculty,
suggesting that adjunct faculty may be earlier in their careers or may otherwise have less access
to institutional knowledge. However, only 19% of survey respondents indicated that
professional development activities were developed with adjunct faculty needs in mind. Survey
results and focus group data suggest a need to expand professional development opportunities
and to gauge the specific professional development needs of the adjunct faculty.
Funding for professional development. Focus group participants discussed their
perception of the college commitment to their professional development specific to their
discipline via off-campus conferences or workshops. For this type of professional development,
participants reported little support. They did not know how to access financial support from the
college, nor did they know if these opportunities were available. Participants had a sense that the
college and/or district did pay for discipline-specific professional development via conferences
or workshops, but believed that those opportunities were for full-time faculty. For example,
when asked, “Do you feel like most adjunct faculty members have those opportunities for
professional development?” Participant 2 responded,
No, I don’t believe so. I think that I tried a few times to request funds for professional
development, but I don’t think that they do . . . I’m not sure if it’s split. Like, this is
going to be monies for adjuncts and this is going to be monies for someone that is not an
adjunct.
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
56
Responses from focus group members suggested a complex relationship between knowledge and
organizational factors. If professional development funds are available for conferences and
trainings, adjunct faculty members would benefit from greater knowledge of availability and
processes for obtaining financial support.
Communication with adjunct faculty. In survey data, 50% of adjunct faculty reported
that the college does a good job in communicating important information about college priorities
and initiatives. Only 21% strongly agreed or somewhat agreed that the college does a good job
in communicating critical information about leadership changes. Based on focus group
feedback, it seems that these two types of information might be communicated in different ways.
For example, priorities and initiatives would more likely be reinforced by department chairs and
full-time faculty through informal channels, whereas leadership changes are more likely
communicated through mass emails.
Among focus group participants, two themes around communication emerged. First,
focus group participants indicated that most communication from the college came via “All
Users” emails. As such, adjunct faculty have difficulty determining when they are really a target
of the communication and tended to not pay much attention to the emails. Similarly, Participant
3 described the college communication to adjunct faculty as “distant,” and several participants
indicated a desire to have more communication from college leadership by some means other
than mass emails. A second theme on communication had to do with departments and deans,
where those focus group participants who did feel knowledgeable about what is happening at the
college credited this to communication from deans and department chairs.
Policies and procedures. The survey of adjunct faculty showed 19% believed that
college policies and procedures supported the inclusion of adjunct faculty, while 12% disagreed,
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
57
and a full 39% were unsure or did not know. While this data may suggest that the college could
address their policies and procedures for including adjunct faculty, the data also indicates that
adjunct faculty would benefit from greater knowledge about the policies and procedures.
Only 12% of respondents indicated that they had the opportunity to participate in shared
governance. However, it was unclear based on the data if this percentage accounts for who is
available to participate, who is motivated to participate, or if this percentage represents
perceptions about the policies and procedures for including adjunct faculty. Additionally, shared
governance was not more specifically defined in the original survey and may have been
interpreted as participation in the Academic Senate, since 75% of those who answered the open-
ended question identified Academic Senate as a key decision-making body. A qualitative
analysis did provide a sense of the committee and governing bodies that adjunct faculty think of
when they think of shared governance, with Academic Senate and the Planning and Budget
Committee being mentioned most frequently. Few respondents indicated whether they had
knowledge of the policies and procedures that drive the composition of these committees and
whether adjunct faculty members typically participated. The relationship between knowledge of
policies and procedures versus the content of those policies presents an opportunity for both
enhancing knowledge and examining organizational practices.
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
58
Solutions and Recommendations
Knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors work in concert to affect the inclusion
of adjunct faculty in the college culture. The data collected via survey and focus group provided
a framework for recommendations that could be implemented toward the goal of increasing
adjunct faculty inclusion in the college culture.
Knowledge Recommendations
Based on the quantitative and qualitative data collected at Bailey Canyon College, two
knowledge gaps are identified. Adjunct faculty reported having very little knowledge of how the
college is organized. While many respondents had a sense of how their own department or
division were organized, respondents indicated a lack of knowledge about the organization of
upper management and likely did not know the individuals serving in key leadership roles.
Furthermore, respondents were not sure how institutional decisions were made or by whom.
Krathwohl (2002) and Rueda (2001) emphasize the importance of conceptual knowledge,
whereby learners start to understand relationships and connections. Understanding institutional
processes through training will allow adjunct faculty to better understand the decision-making of
the institution (Clark & Estes, 2008). Kezar and Sam (2013) discuss the importance of
institutional understanding in effectively engaging adjunct faculty. Table 4 summarizes the
identified knowledge gaps and recommendations for addressing those gaps.
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
59
Table 4
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Knowledge
Influence
Validated
as a Gap?
Yes, High
Probability
or No
(V, HP, N)
Priority?
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Adjunct faculty
need to understand
the organizational
structure of the
institution,
including
committees and
shared
governance. (C)
HP Y Conceptual
knowledge is more
complex in that the
learner begins to
make connections
and understand
relationships between
ideas (Krathwohl,
2002; Rueda, 2011).
Provide adjunct
faculty with a job aid
in the form of an
organizational chart
that includes names
and roles,
committees, and the
reporting structure.
Adjunct faculty
need to understand
the process for
how stakeholders
are included in
decision-making.
(P)
HP N Training has proven
an effective means
for developing an
understanding of
processes (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Provide adjunct
faculty a training to
better understand
processes of
decision-making and
shared governance in
the college.
Increasing adjunct faculty knowledge of organizational structure. The research data
suggests that 51% of adjunct faculty lack understanding of the organizational structure, including
knowledge of who key personnel are, decision-making bodies and committees, and the reporting
structure of the organization. Knowledge of organizational structure at Bailey Canyon College
may be limited by the fact that many adjunct faculty members work at multiple sites and at
multiple jobs. Rueda (2011) emphasizes the importance of assisting stakeholders in
understanding connections and relationships within the organization. Adjunct faculty need the
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
60
information about organizational structure, but must also find it meaningful and useful, seeing
connections between the information provided and their role in the institution. One
recommendation would be to bridge this knowledge gap by supporting adjunct faculty in gaining
the institutional knowledge specific to Bailey Canyon College by meaningfully building on
general knowledge of college organizational structures. The recommendation then is to provide
a job aid that would show the organizational structure, illustrating the connections between
committees, job roles, and names of key personnel at the institution. The job aid would highlight
the ways in which some organizational factors at Bailey Canyon College may be unique
compared to other institutions, and by highlighting the value of this knowledge for adjunct
faculty members.
With 59% of the adjunct faculty at Bailey Canyon College working at multiple campuses,
demands on time and competing priorities may pose a challenge for gaining sufficient
institutional knowledge (Bakley & Brodersen, 2018). Adjunct faculty may not have enough
exposure to the structure or key players at the college, especially adjunct faculty who are rarely
on campus and are more likely than their full-time colleagues to teach evening classes.
Furthermore, adjunct faculty are then less likely to understand the processes in place for
institutional decision-making. Clark and Estes (2008) argue that a job aid is appropriate for
bridging this procedural knowledge gap, particularly where adjunct faculty could compare and
contrast the organizational structure compared to other institutions with which they may have
familiarity. Additionally, the decision-making bodies, their relationships to one another, and
where and how adjunct faculty may be appointed as part of the decision-making processes may
support the goal of making this job aid more meaningful for adjunct faculty.
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
61
Increasing adjunct faculty understanding of ways to be involved in organizational
decision-making. The research suggests that 53% of adjunct faculty need to develop knowledge
about how decisions are made and how adjunct faculty could be involved in the decision-making
process. Eccles’s (2006) expectancy value theory would propose that adjunct faculty will
increase knowledge when they have interest and enthusiasm for the learning. Clark and Estes
(2008) suggest that procedural knowledge is best gained through training. Workshops are
recommended that would allow adjunct faculty to engage with managers and full-time faculty to
learn about the processes for connecting to the institution. The professional development
committee would establish a series of workshops on relevant topics to support adjunct faculty in
understanding the ways in which institutional decisions are made and the opportunities for
adjunct faculty to participate in the processes.
The workshop series model would not only demonstrate how decisions are made, but
would allow adjunct faculty to see where and how the institution is invested in including the
voice of adjunct faculty members on committees, work-groups, campus-wide activities and
shared governance. Adjuncts who gain knowledge of institutional procedures and decision-
making will likely come away from the workshop series thinking about ways that they can
become more connected, thus feeling less like an outsider. The very act of participating in the
workshop series provides an initial mechanism for adjunct faculty to be a more integral part of
the college community.
Motivation Recommendations
Introduction. Based on the data collected at Bailey Canyon College, two motivation
gaps are identified. First, adjunct faculty reported that they did not believe that they have any
impact on institutional decision-making and therefore, did not make efforts to participate in
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
62
college committees and decision-making bodies. Second, adjunct faculty were also uncertain
that their contributions were valued, with only 48% indicating that they believed that adjunct
faculty contributions outside of the classroom are valued by full-time faculty and administrators.
These motivational gaps were prioritized in the program implementation plan because they were
presumed to have a high impact on the likelihood that adjunct faculty members could move
toward inclusion in the college culture.
Pintrich (2003) emphasizes the importance of attributions. As adjunct faculty members
attribute change to their own input, they are more likely to be motivated to engage. Eccles
(2006) found that motivation increases for those who take a personal interest in the task at hand
and find personal value in the task. Adjunct faculty are more likely, according to this model, to
participate in the college culture when they are interested in doing so because they can identify
benefits. Table 5 summarizes the identified motivation gaps and recommendations for
addressing those gaps.
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
63
Table 5
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Motivation
Influence
Validated as
a Gap?
Yes, High
Probability,
No
(V, HP, N)
Priority?
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Attributions —
Adjunct faculty
should believe
that they have
input into
institutional
decision-making.
HP Y Adaptive
attributions and
control beliefs
motivate
[individuals]
(Pintrich, 2003).
Provide adjunct faculty
members with regular
communication that
reinforces their role in
institutional decision-
making, focused on
their efforts as a critical
factor.
Utility Value —
Adjunct faculty
need to believe
that there is value
in participating in
college
committees,
governance, or
activities.
HP Y Activating personal
interest through
opportunities for
choice and control
can increase
motivation (Eccles,
2006).
Provide adjunct faculty
professional
development
opportunities marketed
with a focus on the
value/benefits of
participation,
specifically with
adjunct faculty in
mind.
Shifting attributions beliefs about organizational decision-making for adjunct
faculty members. Forty-eight percent of adjunct faculty respondents indicated that their input in
organizational decision-making was not highly valued by Bailey Canyon College. Attribution
theory suggests that motivation is enhanced when individuals attribute outcomes to their own
effort (Anderman & Anderman, 2006; Pintrich, 2003). From this framework, it is important for
adjunct faculty members to shift their belief in their own efforts as a mechanism for
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
64
organizational change through participation in the decision-making processes. Therefore, the
recommendation is to provide adjunct faculty regular communication affirming the importance
of their efforts in affecting organizational decision-making. Upper management and deans
would target communication to adjunct faculty through informal channels and more formal
channels such as adjunct focused emails to reinforce the value that adjunct faculty bring to the
college inside and outside of the classroom.
Ott and Dippold (2018b) described the adjunct faculty absence in decision-making as
symbolic, sending a message that adjunct faculty members are not valued and that their expertise
is not acknowledged. In such an environment, adjunct faculty are less likely to feel motivated to
engage, believing that their effort to do so does not affect institutional outcomes (Gappa &
Leslie, 2002). Anderman and Anderman (2006) discuss the role of controllability on motivation,
referring to whether or not the cause is perceived as within the control of the individual. Viewed
within this framework, it is recommended that administration and full-time faculty communicate
the role that adjunct faculty involvement has in positively impacting the college.
Increasing utility value for adjunct faculty members. Half of the Bailey Canyon
College adjunct faculty focus group participants indicated that they did not see a strong personal
benefit to participating in decision-making bodies of the college. Utility value is the belief in the
value and usefulness of engagement (Schraw & Lehman, 2009). According to Schraw and
Lehman (2009), activating and building upon personal interest can increase learning and
motivation. If adjunct faculty members cannot see personal or professional benefit in making
contributions to the college, they are less likely to feel motivated to do so. The recommendation
is to provide adjunct faculty professional development opportunities marketed with a focus on
the value/benefits of participation, specifically with adjunct faculty in mind.
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
65
Clark and Estes (2008) describe the role of active choice on motivation, focusing on the
stakeholder’s initiation of work toward a task. Within a utility value framework, adjunct faculty
are more likely to engage in the active choice to initiate engagement when they can see the
benefit of doing so (Clark & Estes, 2008). For example, if adjunct faculty members see how
their contributions to the college can improve their skills in the classroom, they might be more
inclined to be engaged in the life of the college (Ott & Dippold, 2018b). If adjunct faculty
members see that building their resume through campus involvement will improve their long-
term employment prospects, they may be more motivated to be involved in the institution
(Diegel, 2013). If adjunct faculty members believe that there is value in what they can bring to
students in the classroom as a result of their institutional knowledge, they will be more likely
motivated to participate (Wallin, 2004). Consequently, it is recommended that professional
development and involvement opportunities are marketed in a targeted way to adjunct faculty
highlighting benefits of their participation. For example, communications about professional
development opportunities should include verbiage that adjunct faculty are welcome or
encouraged to participate.
Organization Recommendations
Introduction. There are three organizational factors that will be implemented as part of
the plan to improve the experience of adjunct faculty members in the college culture at Bailey
Canyon College. The first recommendation supported by the data calls for spaces on campus to
be made available to adjunct faculty members. Additionally, it is recommended that the college
support adjunct faculty in their own professional development, not only offering more targeted
opportunities, but also communicating the opportunities and how to access the opportunities.
Lastly, the data suggests that one component of the plan should involve a more targeted
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
66
communication campaign with adjunct faculty in mind. These organizational gaps were
prioritized in the program implementation plan because of the frequency with which they were
identified as possible key drivers that would affect key outcomes for adjunct faculty.
Clark and Estes (2008) introduce cultural settings and cultural models as mechanisms for
affecting organizational change. Cultural setting include the visible, concrete elements of an
organization, while cultural models refer to beliefs and values which are invisible, but are known
to affect the organization. Adjunct faculty are likely to respond to shifts in identified cultural
settings and cultural models in ways that will change their relationship to the college. Table 6
summarizes the identified organizational gaps and recommendations for addressing those gaps.
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
67
Table 6
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Organization
Influence
Validated
as a Gap?
Yes, High
Probability,
No
(V, HP, N)
Priority?
Yes, No
(Y, N) Principle and Citation
Context-Specific
Recommendation
Adjunct faculty
need meeting
space on campus
to feel a sense of
belonging to the
campus. (CS)
HP Y Clark and Estes (2008)
suggest the need to
address cultural
settings (visible,
concrete
manifestations of
culture models), to
increase effectiveness
in meeting
organizational goals.
Administration
would be deliberate
in creating spaces
on campus for
adjunct faculty to
meet with students
and congregate
with other staff and
faculty members.
Administration do
not offer adequate
professional
development
opportunities for
adjunct faculty.
(CM)
HP Y Clark and Estes (2008)
address the need to
adjust cultural models:
values, beliefs, and
attitudes that are
generally invisible and
automated.
Target professional
funds and
opportunities for
adjunct faculty.
Administration
does not
consistently
include adjunct
faculty in
communication
about the college.
(CM)
HP Y Clark and Estes (2008)
address the need to
adjust cultural models:
values, beliefs, and
attitudes that are
generally invisible and
automated.
Become more
intentional in
including adjunct
faculty in
organizational
communication.
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
68
Provide adjunct faculty with spaces on campus. Two-thirds of focus group
participants indicated that they did not stay on campus or feel connected to the college because
they did not have physical spaces to spend time on campus outside of their classroom or outside
of instructional time. Clark and Estes (2008) discuss the importance of cultural settings,
suggesting that cultural settings are visible manifestations of cultural models. The gap in
physical resources such as office space or gathering locations may be perceived as
manifestations of the value that administration attaches to including adjunct faculty.
Administration could address this gap by being deliberate in creating spaces on campus for
adjunct faculty to meet with students and colleagues.
Fundamental resources were identified by Meixner et al. (2010) as important to adjuncts
such as office space, a mailbox, and adequate parking. These resources are important to adjunct
faculty and influence the likelihood that adjunct faculty will spend time on campus outside of
their scheduled class. Interacting with administration, full-time faculty, and college staff
members happens outside of an adjunct faculty member’s instructional time. Colleges at which
adjunct faculty do not have a place to be will likely spend less time on campus, resulting in a
lower likelihood that they will feel motivated to engage and less likely to feel included in the
college culture (Meixner et al., 2010).
Professional development opportunities targeting adjunct faculty. Only 30% of
adjunct faculty survey respondents indicated that they believe that adequate resources were
provided for adjunct faculty professional development. Clark and Estes’ (2008) emphasis on
cultural settings would include the tangible and identifiable opportunity to participate in
professional development as an indicator of the value that administration puts on such activities
for adjunct faculty. Administration could address this gap by proactively including adjunct
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
69
faculty in professional development activities. Professional development would include both
inclusive practices for workshops that already occur on campus for full-time faculty, as well as
resource allocation for conference participation that historically targets full-time faculty.
Dolan et al. (2013) concluded that adjunct faculty felt more connected to the college
culture when budgets and professional development agendas acknowledge the needs of adjunct
faculty. Professional development provides adjunct faculty with knowledge of the institution,
but also affects professional identity, which may, in turn, positively impact an adjunct faculty
member’s motivation to engage and connect to the institution. A change to the professional
development model and processes could impact both knowledge and motivation for adjunct
faculty to increase engagement in the college culture.
Increase communication directed to adjunct faculty. Only 54% of adjunct faculty
survey respondents indicated that they receive communication from administration about key
priorities and initiatives. Among focus group participants, there was a sense that communication
from management was of such a general nature that it did not really appear to target adjunct
faculty. Still fewer survey respondents (21%) indicated that communication about leadership
changes at the college was adequate. Clark and Estes (2008) discuss the importance of cultural
models as values, beliefs and attitudes that are generally invisible and automated. The sense that
adjunct faculty have that they are not an important stakeholder in college communications may
reflect beliefs that adjunct faculty are perceived as unimportant or undervalued within the
institution. Administration could address this gap through targeted and intentional
communication with adjunct faculty members.
Adjunct faculty need consistent and ongoing communication with management,
division/department chairs, and full-time faculty peers in order to be a part of the college culture.
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
70
Diegel (2013) highlighted the positive impact of communication between department chairs and
adjunct faculty in creating a sense of value and inclusion. When adjunct faculty do not receive
adequate support via verbal and written communication, they feel less connected to the
institution.
Limitations
This study utilized a modified version of the college campus climate survey that had been
used at Bailey Canyon College in past years. Because this research relied on a validated
instrument, the survey responses were left intact, including a respondent option of “Neutral” and
“Don’t Know.” On many questions, respondents opted for one of these responses, making some
of the outcomes difficult to interpret.
Another limitation of the study was small focus group size. The nature of adjunct faculty
work schedules made coordinating convenient focus group times challenging. Interviews were
not an option for this study because of the reporting relationship between the researcher and
some adjunct faculty members. However, interviews might be preferable for future research.
The emphasis on participant anonymity that drove the focus group model likely
negatively affected sample size, but also limited data analysis, as the researcher had less
information about the respondents’ relationship to the college. Interviews would have allowed
for more robust narratives and the opportunity to better contextualize the experiences of
participating adjunct faculty members.
Recommendations for Future Research
Maynard and Joseph (2006) indicated that voluntary adjunct faculty members have
different needs than their involuntary adjunct counterparts. In other words, adjunct faculty
members who have a full-time job elsewhere, or those for whom part-time status is ideal may
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
71
have a different relationship to the institution compared to adjunct faculty who aspire to be full-
time. There may be benefit in research aimed at differentiating the experiences and needs that
are unique to voluntary and involuntary adjunct sub-groups. It may also be beneficial to further
explore motivation of adjunct faculty to engage in the college by subgroup. Sixty-seven percent
of responding adjunct faculty indicated that they see value in their participation in the college. If
23% do not see value in participation, and the recommendations and solutions implemented are
voluntary for adjunct faculty, those who simply do not want to engage will likely not. Future
research is recommended that disaggregates adjunct faculty members who want to engage in the
college from those who are not interested in college engagement beyond their classroom.
Lastly, a potential direction for future research would be document analysis of college
policies and procedures. The current study asked respondents about their understanding of
policies and procedures with respect to adjunct inclusion. However, policies and procedures
were not directly studied. The study of policies and procedures may provide additional tools for
better understanding the adjunct faculty perceptions of inclusion in the college culture.
Conclusion
Adjunct faculty at community colleges have a unique relationship with the institutions at
which they work and with their colleagues. Despite the large proportion of classes being taught
by adjunct faculty, the needs of adjunct faculty are still frequently minimized or
unacknowledged. Concerns about pay, benefits, and job stability tend to be prioritized by
adjunct bargaining units. However, this study addressed concerns that get to the heart of identity
and inclusion, psychological factors that can have a substantial impact on adjunct faculty and the
institutions they serve. The identified knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps, as well
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
72
as the resulting recommendations and solutions, warrant consideration for implementation for the
benefit of adjunct faculty, community colleges, and the students they serve.
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
73
Appendix A: Participating Stakeholders with Sampling Criteria
for Survey and Focus Groups
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. Participating adjunct faculty members must by currently employed by
Bailey Canyon College with the adjunct faculty classification. To understand the faculty
members’ experience of the college culture, it is important for them to be current employees.
Criterion 2. Participating adjunct faculty members will have at least one Bailey Canyon
College class assigned to them in the semester in which data collection occurs or in the most
recent semester completed in the event that data collection occurs in the summer.
Criterion 3. Participating adjunct faculty members will have completed at least one
semester of teaching with at least one class prior to the term of data collection. It is presumed
that new faculty may not have had time to learn about the campus culture if they have not
completed at least one semester of teaching at the college.
Survey Sampling Strategy and Rationale
Bailey Canyon College has an active research department that partnered in the sampling
and data collection process. The participation of the research department is critical for this study
to protect that anonymity of respondents, given the supervisory role of this researcher. The
survey data collected was primarily quantitative in nature, utilizing Likert scales, but there was a
qualitative element, allowing respondents to provide open-ended responses.
Focus Group Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. Participating adjunct faculty members must by currently employed by
Bailey Canyon College with the adjunct faculty classification. To understand the faculty
members’ experience of the college culture, it is important for them to be current employees.
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
74
Criterion 2. Participating adjunct faculty members will have at least one Bailey Canyon
College class assigned to them in the semester in which data collection occurs or in the semester
that most recently concluded in the event that focus groups take place during the summer.
Criterion 3. Participating adjunct faculty members will have completed at least one
semester of teaching with at least one class prior to the term of data collection. It is presumed
that new faculty may not have had time to learn about the campus culture if they have not
completed at least one semester of teaching at the college.
Focus Group Sampling Strategy and Rationale
Participants in the quantitative survey were invited to participate in a follow-up focus
group to further explore the experiences of inclusion in college culture. The group facilitator
was trained and approved through the Institutional Review Board at the University of Southern
California and is skilled in facilitating group discussion. The principal researcher did not
participate in focus groups due to the reporting relationship of some adjunct faculty participants.
Focus groups took place on the Bailey Canyon College campus when few classes are offered in
order to minimize conflicts with adjunct teaching schedules. Focus groups were approximately
1½ hours long. Focus groups were audio recorded, transcribed by rev.com, and scrubbed for
identifying information prior to being provided to the principal researcher.
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
75
Appendix B: Protocols
Surveys
Qualtrics was used to send the survey to all adjunct faculty employed by Bailey Canyon
College at the time of administration. The email included information about informed consent,
questions that addressed qualifying criteria, and questions that addressed the study research
questions.
Informed consent. You are invited to participate in a survey of adjunct faculty about
their experiences at Bailey Canyon College. The purpose of this study is to explore the
experiences of adjunct faculty to better understand their experiences as a part of the college and
what factors influence the ways in which this college includes adjunct faculty in the college
culture. The principal investigator of this project is a doctoral candidate at the University of
Southern California and is employed within the district. The Bailey Canyon College research
office will collect the data on behalf of the researcher and will eliminate identifying data prior to
providing the data to the researcher. This is done to protect the anonymity and confidentiality of
participants. Participation is completely voluntary and you can choose to not answer any
question or end your participation at any time. Though responses will be used in the research
outcome, they will not be identifiable to any respondent. A pseudonym will be used to identify
this school site in the submitted research.
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
76
Survey questions.
Research
Question / Data
Type
KMO
Construct
Survey Item (question and
response)
Scale of
Measurement
Potential
Analysis
Visual
Representation
Demographic
Are you teaching a class at
_______ College during the
current semester?
Nominal Percentage
Demographic
How many years have you
taught at __________ College?
Less than 1 year / 1–2 years / 3–
5 years / 6–10 years / 11 or more
years
Interval Frequency Bar Graph
Demographic
How many total years of
experience do you have teaching
at the college level?
Ratio Median /
Mean
Bar Graph
Demographic
Do you teach at multiple college
most semesters?
Nominal Percentage
Demographic
What is your gender? Male;
Female; Non-binary / third
gender; transgender; my gender
is not listed above; decline to
state.
Nominal Frequency Bar Graph
Demographic
Please select your age group:
20–24 / 25–29 / 30–39 / 40–49 /
50–59 / 60+.
Interval Percentage Bar Graph
Demographic
Which of the following racial or
ethnic groups do you identify
with? (choose all that apply)
African-American / Black;
American Indian / Alaskan
Native; Asian, Filipino, or
Pacific Islander;
Hispanic/Latino; White; Other.
Nominal Percentage Bar Graph
Demographic
Which best describes your
employment as an adjunct
faculty member? I would prefer
employment as a full-time
faculty member; I am employed
full-time elsewhere and would
only choose to teach as an
adjunct faculty member to
supplement my employment;
Working as an adjunct faculty
member is the best fit
employment for me around other
family, retirement, or work
obligations.
Nominal Frequency Bar Graph
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
77
Research
Question / Data
Type
KMO
Construct
Survey Item (question and
response)
Scale of
Measurement
Potential
Analysis
Visual
Representation
Demographic
I teach in the
________________ division.
Language Arts; Social Sciences;
Science, Engineering & Math;
Business; Kinesiology; Fine &
Performing Arts; Health
Sciences; Career Technical
Education; Counseling.
Nominal Frequency Bar Graph
What is the
stakeholder
knowledge and
motivation
related to the
organizational
goal?
K (factual) How familiar are you with
_________ College’s
organizational mission and core
values? Very familiar,
somewhat familiar, not very
familiar, not at all familiar.
Ordinal Mode / % Bar Graph
What is the
stakeholder
knowledge and
motivation
related to the
organizational
goal?
K (factual) Thinking about leadership,
committees, and decision-
making bodies, how familiar are
you with ___________
College’s organizational
structure? Very familiar,
somewhat familiar, not very
familiar, not familiar at all.
Ordinal Mode / % Bar Graph
What is the
stakeholder
knowledge and
motivation
related to the
organizational
goal?
K
(procedural)
If I wanted to become more
involved in the decision-making
of the college, I would know
how to do so. Strongly agree,
agree, unsure, disagree, strongly
disagree.
Ordinal Mode / % Bar Graph
What is the
stakeholder
knowledge and
motivation
related to the
organizational
goal?
K
(conceptual)
I have an understanding of how
decisions are made at the
college. Strongly agree, agree,
neutral / unsure, disagree,
strongly disagree.
Ordinal Mode / % Bar Graph
What is the
stakeholder
knowledge and
motivation
related to the
organizational
goal?
K / O If there was a committee,
workgroup or initiative in which
you had an interest, do you
believe you would be welcome
to become involved?
Nominal /
Qualitative /
Open Ended
Percentage Mode
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
78
Research
Question / Data
Type
KMO
Construct
Survey Item (question and
response)
Scale of
Measurement
Potential
Analysis
Visual
Representation
What is the
stakeholder
knowledge and
motivation
related to the
organizational
goal?
K If there was a committee,
workgroup or initiative in which
you had an interest, would you
know how to become involved?
Nominal /
Qualitative /
Open Ended
Percentage Mode
What is the
stakeholder
knowledge and
motivation
related to the
organizational
goal?
M I believe that my involvement in
the college campus outside of
the classroom makes a
difference for students. Strongly
agree, somewhat agree, neutral,
somewhat disagree, strongly
disagree, I don’t know.
Interval Mean Table
What is the
stakeholder
knowledge and
motivation
related to the
organizational
goal?
M I believe that my involvement in
the college campus outside of
the classroom makes a
difference in college decision-
making. Strongly agree,
somewhat agree, neutral,
somewhat disagree, strongly
disagree, I don’t know.
Interval Mean Table
What is the
stakeholder
knowledge and
motivation
related to the
organizational
goal?
M I believe that my contributions
to the college outside of the
classroom are valued by full-
time faculty and administrators.
Strongly agree, somewhat agree,
neutral, somewhat disagree,
strongly disagree, I don’t know.
Interval Mean Table
What is the
stakeholder
knowledge and
motivation
related to the
organizational
goal?
M I see value in my participation in
college activities outside of the
classroom. Strongly agree,
somewhat agree, neutral,
somewhat disagree, strongly
disagree, I don’t know.
Interval Mean Table
What is the
stakeholder
knowledge and
motivation
related to the
organizational
goal?
M I see value in contributing to
discussion about the activities,
policies, and procedures of the
college. Strongly agree,
somewhat agree, neutral,
somewhat disagree, strongly
disagree, I don’t know.
Interval Mean Table
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
79
Research
Question / Data
Type
KMO
Construct
Survey Item (question and
response)
Scale of
Measurement
Potential
Analysis
Visual
Representation
What is the
interaction
between
organizational
culture and
context and
adjunct faculty
knowledge and
motivation with
respect to the
organizational
goal?
O The college provides adequate
professional development
opportunities to adjunct faculty
that allow me to learn about the
college in areas such as mission,
values, strategic plan, and
priority institutional initiatives.
Strongly agree, somewhat agree,
neutral, somewhat disagree,
strongly disagree, I don’t know.
Interval Mean Table
What is the
interaction
between
organizational
culture and
context and
adjunct faculty
knowledge and
motivation with
respect to the
organizational
goal?
O The college provides adequate
opportunities for adjunct faculty
to meaningfully engage with
their colleagues. Strongly agree,
somewhat agree, neutral,
somewhat disagree, strongly
disagree, I don’t know.
Interval Mean Table
What is the
interaction
between
organizational
culture and
context and
adjunct faculty
knowledge and
motivation with
respect to the
organizational
goal?
O There are adequate opportunities
for adjunct faculty to be engaged
in the college campus outside of
the classroom. Strongly agree,
somewhat agree, neutral,
somewhat disagree, strongly
disagree, I don’t know.
Interval Mean Table
What is the
interaction
between
organizational
culture and
context and
adjunct faculty
knowledge and
motivation with
respect to the
organizational
goal?
O The college does a good job in
communicating important
initiatives and priorities to
adjunct faculty members.
Strongly agree, somewhat agree,
neutral, somewhat disagree,
strongly disagree, I don’t know.
Interval Mean Table
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
80
Research
Question / Data
Type
KMO
Construct
Survey Item (question and
response)
Scale of
Measurement
Potential
Analysis
Visual
Representation
What is the
interaction
between
organizational
culture and
context and
adjunct faculty
knowledge and
motivation with
respect to the
organizational
goal?
O The college does a good job of
communicating changes in
policies and procedures to
adjunct faculty. Strongly agree,
somewhat agree, neutral,
somewhat disagree, strongly
disagree, I don’t know.
Interval Mean Table
What is the
interaction
between
organizational
culture and
context and
adjunct faculty
knowledge and
motivation with
respect to the
organizational
goal?
O The college does a good job
communicating changes in
leadership to adjunct faculty.
Strongly agree, somewhat agree,
neutral, somewhat disagree,
strongly disagree, I don’t know.
Interval Mean Table
What is the
interaction
between
organizational
culture and
context and
adjunct faculty
knowledge and
motivation with
respect to the
organizational
goal?
O The college has policies and
procedures that support the
inclusion of adjunct faculty in
campus events and committees.
Strongly agree, somewhat agree,
neutral, somewhat disagree,
strongly disagree, I don’t know.
Interval Mean Table
What is the
interaction
between
organizational
culture and
context and
adjunct faculty
knowledge and
motivation with
respect to the
organizational
goal?
O The college has policies and
procedures that support the
inclusion of adjunct faculty in
college decision-making.
Strongly agree, somewhat agree,
neutral, somewhat disagree,
strongly disagree, I don’t know.
Interval Mean Table
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
81
Research
Question / Data
Type
KMO
Construct
Survey Item (question and
response)
Scale of
Measurement
Potential
Analysis
Visual
Representation
What is the
interaction
between
organizational
culture and
context and
adjunct faculty
knowledge and
motivation with
respect to the
organizational
goal?
O Professional development
opportunities are offered with
adjunct faculty in mind.
Strongly agree, somewhat agree,
neutral, somewhat disagree,
strongly disagree, I don’t know.
Interval Mean Table
What is the
interaction
between
organizational
culture and
context and
adjunct faculty
knowledge and
motivation with
respect to the
organizational
goal?
O Adequate resources are allotted
to provide adjunct faculty with
professional development
opportunities. Strongly agree,
somewhat agree, neutral,
somewhat disagree, strongly
disagree, I don’t know.
Interval Mean Table
What is the
interaction
between
organizational
culture and
context and
adjunct faculty
knowledge and
motivation with
respect to the
organizational
goal?
O I have the opportunity to
meaningfully participate in
shared governance at
______________ College.
Strongly agree, somewhat agree,
neutral, somewhat disagree,
strongly disagree, I don’t know.
Interval Mean Table
What is the
interaction
between
organizational
culture and
context and
adjunct faculty
knowledge and
motivation with
respect to the
organizational
goal?
O Communications regarding
decision-making processes are
widely available and easily
accessible. Strongly agree,
somewhat agree, neutral,
somewhat disagree, strongly
disagree, I don’t know.
Interval Mean Table
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
82
Research
Question / Data
Type
KMO
Construct
Survey Item (question and
response)
Scale of
Measurement
Potential
Analysis
Visual
Representation
What is the
interaction
between
organizational
culture and
context and
adjunct faculty
knowledge and
motivation with
respect to the
organizational
goal?
O A sense of team spirit exists at
___________ College. Strongly
agree, somewhat agree, neutral,
somewhat disagree, strongly
disagree, I don’t know.
Interval Mean Table
What is the
interaction
between
organizational
culture and
context and
adjunct faculty
knowledge and
motivation with
respect to the
organizational
goal?
O I am encouraged to be creative
to come up with new ideas and
improvements. Strongly agree,
somewhat agree, neutral,
somewhat disagree, strongly
disagree, I don’t know.
Interval Mean Table
What is the
interaction
between
organizational
culture and
context and
adjunct faculty
knowledge and
motivation with
respect to the
organizational
goal?
O Adjunct employees are provided
adequate opportunities to
participate in important college
committees. Strongly agree,
somewhat agree, neutral,
somewhat disagree, strongly
disagree, I don’t know.
Interval Mean Table
What is the
interaction
between
organizational
culture and
context and
adjunct faculty
knowledge and
motivation with
respect to the
organizational
goal?
O My contributions to planning
and decision-making processes
are valued and considered.
Strongly agree, somewhat agree,
neutral, somewhat disagree,
strongly disagree, I don’t know.
Interval Mean Table
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
83
Research
Question / Data
Type
KMO
Construct
Survey Item (question and
response)
Scale of
Measurement
Potential
Analysis
Visual
Representation
What is the
interaction
between
organizational
culture and
context and
adjunct faculty
knowledge and
motivation with
respect to the
organizational
goal?
O Administrators respect adjunct
instructors. Strongly agree,
somewhat agree, neutral,
somewhat disagree, strongly
disagree, I don’t know.
Interval Mean Table
What is the
interaction
between
organizational
culture and
context and
adjunct faculty
knowledge and
motivation with
respect to the
organizational
goal?
O Full-time faculty respect adjunct
instructors. Strongly agree,
somewhat agree, neutral,
somewhat disagree, strongly
disagree, I don’t know.
Interval Mean Table
What is the
interaction
between
organizational
culture and
context and
adjunct faculty
knowledge and
motivation with
respect to the
organizational
goal?
O Classified staff respect adjunct
instructors. Strongly agree,
somewhat agree, neutral,
somewhat disagree, strongly
disagree, I don’t know.
Interval Mean Table
What is the
stakeholder
knowledge and
motivation
related to the
organizational
goal?
M At this point in my career, I feel
my present position at
______________ College
satisfies my professional goals
and aspirations. Strongly agree,
somewhat agree, neutral,
somewhat disagree, strongly
disagree, I don’t know.
Interval Mean Table
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
84
Research
Question / Data
Type
KMO
Construct
Survey Item (question and
response)
Scale of
Measurement
Potential
Analysis
Visual
Representation
What is the
interaction
between
organizational
culture and
context and
adjunct faculty
knowledge and
motivation with
respect to the
organizational
goal?
O The college’s mission, goals and
values are clearly articulated by
the college. Strongly agree,
somewhat agree, neutral,
somewhat disagree, strongly
disagree, I don’t know.
Interval Mean Table
What is the
stakeholder
knowledge and
motivation
related to the
organizational
goal?
K Without looking them up, do
you know the key elements of
the college missions statement
and/or values? Please share
what you know about them.
Qualitative /
Open-Ended
What is the
interaction
between
organizational
culture and
context and
adjunct faculty
knowledge and
motivation with
respect to the
organizational
goal?
O Are there committees,
workgroups, or initiatives of the
college where you would like to
participate, but have not been
able to? If so, what are those?
Nominal /
Qualitative /
Open Ended
What is the
stakeholder
knowledge and
motivation
related to the
organizational
goal?
K Based on what you know, what
are the key decision-making
bodies, committees, or
workgroups at the college?
Qualitative /
Open-Ended
Focus Groups
To triangulate the findings of the survey, focus groups were held following the
completion of the quantitative data collection. Focus groups aimed to better answer how
respondents experience the college culture. This method provided richer data with respect to the
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
85
interplay between organizational context and culture and the participant’s knowledge and
motivation factors.
Focus group protocol. The focus group protocol was a series of 12 questions designed
to engage participants in a discussion of their adjunct faculty experience with respect to inclusion
in the college culture. The focus group leader used the protocol as a guide, but facilitated a
deliberate discussion around the research questions. Focus groups occurred on two days in June,
2019. This timing allowed for the completion of the survey window, but also allowed for the
completion of all data collection within two weeks of the end of the semester. Three focus group
times were offered, but only two focus group had individuals available to participate. Six
adjunct faculty members participated in focus groups.
Focus group procedures. When participants completed the quantitative survey, they
were given the opportunity to express interest in participating in a focus group to better
understand their experience of the college culture as an adjunct faculty member. Potential
participants were asked to indicate interest and to provide a phone number and email address
where they could be reached. Since many of the potential participants report to this researcher, a
peer colleague familiar with the topic, literature, and research questions acted as the facilitator.
This facilitator does not work for the research site. The facilitator reached out to potential
participants who expressed interest in focus group participation to communicate informed
consent, time, place and related logistics of the focus group. The facilitator coordinated with an
on-campus Office Manager to support logistical issues such as parking permits and securing a
room for the facilitation of focus groups. The focus group component of the project was
facilitated by a cohort colleague familiar with the topic, the literature and the research questions.
He introduced himself to the group according to the focus group protocol, sharing enough
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
86
information to gain trust with participants and to build rapport. The facilitator audio recorded the
focus groups. The audio recordings were transcribed by rev.com for the researcher.
Written informed consent. Thank you for agreeing to participate in this focus group
today. As you know, I am learning more from adjunct faculty about their experiences at Bailey
Canyon College. The purpose of this study is to explore the experiences of adjunct faculty to
better understand their experiences as a part of the college and what factors influence the ways in
which a college includes adjunct faculty in the college culture. As a researcher, it is my
responsibility and obligation to be mindful of protecting you as a subject (Rubin & Rubin, 2012).
I want to make sure that you know that participation is completely voluntary and that you can
choose to not answer any question or end participation at any time (Glesne, 2011). Additionally,
I want to assure you that your information and responses will remain confidential. Though
responses will be used in the research outcome, they will not be identifiable to any respondent.
Additionally, I will be using a pseudonym to identify this school site. The principal researcher
for this study is an employee of this district, but I am not. I will be audio recording our focus
group today. Afterward, the audio recording will be transcribed and any identifying information
will be retracted before providing the transcript to the principal investigator. These measures are
to further protect your anonymity and confidentiality. It is my hope that this research will inform
practices that will ultimately benefit adjunct faculty, the college, and ultimately, the students
being served.
Focus group questions.
1. Tell me what, if anything, you know about the mission statement and core values of
the college.
2. Tell me what, if anything, you know about the leadership and structure of the college.
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
87
3. Describe your familiarity with how institutional decisions are made.
a. For example, what is the balance between the administrative role and the
faculty role in decision making?
b. For example, to your knowledge, what committees are charged with
institutional decision-making?
c. To your knowledge, how are those committees formed?
4. Describe your familiarity with the student support services available on campus.
5. Describe any mechanisms that the college utilizes to communicate with adjunct
faculty about key priorities and initiatives.
6. How would you describe the college culture?
7. Can you describe the communication between management and adjunct faculty at the
college?
8. How would you describe the relationship between full-time and part-time faculty at
the college?
9. How does the college include adjunct faculty outside of their assigned instruction
time?
10. Tell me about the ways in which adjunct faculty might choose to be involved in the
college outside of their classroom.
11. In what ways have you participated in the college outside of instructional time?
a. If you haven’t, what would influence your decision to participate or not?
12. Tell me about opportunities for professional development for adjunct faculty at
Bailey Canyon College.
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
88
Appendix C: Credibility and Trustworthiness
The focus group component of the project was facilitated by a cohort colleague with
familiarity with the topic, the literature and the research questions. He introduced himself to the
group according to the focus group protocol, sharing enough information to gain trust with
participants and to build rapport.
In order to establish and maintain credibility and trustworthiness, multiple strategies were
used. First, in qualitative research, the researcher, or in this case, the facilitator, is the instrument
of data collection and analysis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Consequently, it was important for
the facilitator to recognize and minimize his own biases related to the topic and the subjects.
Secondly, he engaged in member checking, a practice of soliciting feedback on the findings in
order to validate that recorded findings are consistent with the participants’ intent (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Member checking happened as the focus groups came to a close, with the
facilitator summarizing some of the data and asking participants if it aligned with their intended
communications. Finally, the mixed methods approach of using both quantitative and qualitative
data collection methods allowed for triangulation, which refers to the process by which the
research is able to align outcomes derived from the multiple methods as a means of increasing
credibility and trustworthiness (Maxwell, 2013).
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
89
Appendix D: Validity and Reliability
To maximize reliability and validity, this researcher worked with the college Department
of Institutional Research to examine data from past administrations of the Campus Climate
Survey. Where items relevant to the research questions were identified as reliable and valid,
they were included in the survey for this research project. Since the climate survey is primarily
focused on organizational factors and does not address all of the elements of the KMO model, it
was necessary to write items that address knowledge and motivation factors. Consequently,
there was a small pilot of the survey administered to better assess reliability and validity. A pilot
survey, including a small subset of likely respondents, allowed for an early check of reliability
and validity (Salkind, 2017). Additionally, this researcher engaged the support of a senior
researcher in the college research office and the focus group facilitator for review and feedback
on the survey questions to increase content validity, a common practice whereby experts review
questions to assess whether or not the questions target and address the research questions as
intended (Salkind, 2017).
To ensure a sufficient response rate, the research office sent reminder emails each week
for three weeks following the initial survey push. Non-responses did occur and introduced some
bias to this research project, but will be addressed as a limitation of the study.
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
90
Appendix E: Ethics
To collect data about the experience of adjunct faculty members, a quantitative survey
was administered. It is the researcher’s responsibility and obligation to do no harm to study
participants (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). One of the most important ethical considerations in this
study was the relationship between the researcher and the research subjects. The primary
researcher for this study was in a position to hire, schedule, and supervise adjunct faculty.
Potential participants should never feel coerced to participate or believe that there would be a
negative consequence to their choice to not participate (Maxwell, 2013). Choices about
participating are especially important when the reporting relationship is such that the researcher
could hold power over the participant. Consequently, it is important that the identity of
participants not be known to the researcher. To this end, the Department of Institutional
Research at the college site worked with the researcher to push the survey out to potential
participants and reviewed the data, eliminating any potential identifying information before
providing it for analysis.
A statement about informed consent was part of the initial communication to potential
study participants. Potential participants were provided with a description of the study with the
parameters of the study so that they could decide if they would like to participate. Consistent
with the description provided by Glesne (2011), informed consent ensured confidentiality and
emphasized to potential participants that participation was voluntary. Potential participants were
informed that there would be no penalty for choosing not to participate and that they could cease
participation at any time without penalty.
The CITI training on ethics was completed through the University of Southern California.
The study was submitted to the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
91
(IRB) and also to the research site college Office of Institutional Research for review of any
potential ethical concerns prior to survey administration.
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
92
Appendix F: Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The described program will be evaluated using the New World Kirkpatrick Model
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The New World Kirkpatrick Model assesses the success of
the program and its implementation at four levels. Level 1 focuses on the stakeholder
satisfaction and engagement in the program. Level 2 addresses learning goals, assessing whether
participants mastered the established learning goals. Level 3 focuses on behavior, addressing
whether program participants successfully implement what they learn. Finally, Level 4 assesses
outcomes from the standpoint of leading indicators. Leading indicators are described as shorter-
term observations and metrics that suggest that the program is achieving desired results.
Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
The mission of Bailey Canyon College is to enrich students’ lives by providing premier
educational opportunities including transfer to four-year institutions, associate degrees, and
certificates. The College is dedicated to supporting the success of our students, fostering
diversity, enriching society, and contributing to the economic development of our community
and beyond. The stakeholder goal is to achieve increased connection to the college culture
through enhanced participation, more investment in college decision-making processes, and
greater campus engagement by all regularly scheduled adjunct faculty. This stakeholder group
and goal was selected because of the number of courses taught by adjunct faculty and their
ultimate impact on the college mission and goals. It is expected that following implementation
of the program, adjunct faculty members will feel more connected to the campus, as
demonstrated by increased participation in the college.
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
93
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
If the stakeholders are achieving the program goals, there will likely be an impact on their
effectiveness in the classroom. Consequently, external outcomes would include an increase in
student success in classes taught by adjunct faculty, and a higher incidence of the college being
promoted as a college of choice by feeder high schools. Internal outcomes would include a
better understanding of organizational structure by adjunct faculty. Adjunct faculty participation
in campus committees and campus-wide events would increase. Adjunct faculty would have
increased participation in professional development activities and would more frequently apply
for professional development funding.
Table F1 shows the proposed Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators in the form of
outcomes, metrics and methods for both external and internal outcomes. If the internal outcomes
are met as expected based on the implemented actions, then external outcomes should also be
realized.
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
94
Table F1
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
Student success rates will increase
for courses taught by adjunct
faculty.
Increase in the percentage
of students who receive
credit for course
completion.
Data collected from the
Office of Institutional
Research.
Feeder high school will increase
perceptions of the college as a
valuable school of choice for high
school seniors.
Enrollment data will show
increased enrollments from
local high schools.
Data collected from the
Office of Institutional
Research.
Internal Outcomes
Increased number of adjunct faculty
serving on college committees.
Number of participants. Committee meeting
rosters and minutes.
Increased number of adjunct faculty
participating in campus-wide
events.
Number of participants. Event sign-in sheets
and/or registrations.
Increase in adjunct faculty use of
professional development funds for
conferences.
Number of applications. Professional
development committee
reports.
Increase in adjunct faculty
participation in on-campus
professional development activities.
Number of participants. Professional
development sign-in
sheets and attendance
records.
Increased understanding of
organizational structure by adjunct
faculty.
Attendance at professional
development activities
offered to adjunct faculty.
Registration and
attendance sign-in
sheets.
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
95
Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. In order to achieve the desired outcomes, adjunct faculty members
need to demonstrate new ways of interacting with the college. Adjunct faculty members will
seek out opportunities to participate in college committees and will increase attendance at
Academic Senate or other key shared governance bodies. Adjunct faculty will also increase
participation in professional development via flex day learning activities, faculty orientation, or
other professional development activities of their choosing. Adjunct faculty will apply for
professional development funding for conferences at a higher rate, allowing for greater
participation in off-site professional development activities as well. Table F2 highlights the
critical behaviors that will need to be demonstrated by adjunct faculty, as well as the metric used
to measure the behavior, the method of measurement, and the timing of the evaluation.
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
96
Table F2
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
Adjunct faculty
members seek out
participation on
college committees.
Attendance / membership
record.
Work with committee
chairs to track
involvement.
Monthly
Adjunct faculty
attend Academic
Senate meetings.
Increased attendance. Work with Academic
Senate secretary for
meeting / attendance
records.
Monthly
Adjunct faculty
solicit professional
development funds.
Increase in number of
applications for professional
development funds from
adjunct faculty.
Acquire records from
professional
development committee.
Quarterly
Adjunct faculty
attend orientation
activities.
Number of adjunct faculty in
attendance at each activity.
Acquire attendance
records from
professional
development committee.
Quarterly
Adjunct faculty
attend Opening Day
and Flex Day
activities.
Number of adjunct faculty in
attendance at each event.
Acquire attendance
records from
professional
development committee.
First week
of classes
Required drivers. Based on the identified gaps, there are critical organizational
influences that will drive the achievement of the stakeholder outcomes. College administration
will need to enhance communication targeting adjunct faculty in order to increase motivation to
be involved in college activities. Administration will also need to develop professional
development activities that target adjunct faculty, allowing the faculty to gain knowledge and
connections to the college. Table F3 describes the methods for organizational support via
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
97
reinforcing, encouraging, rewarding, and monitoring and which critical behaviors these actions
will support.
Table F3
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical
Behaviors
Supported
1, 2, 3, etc.
Reinforcing
Provide adjunct faculty with a job aid in the form of an
organizational chart that includes names and roles, committees,
and the reporting structure.
Per semester 2, 4, 5
Provide adjunct faculty training to better understand processes
of decision-making and shared governance in the college.
Per semester 2, 4, 5
Encouraging
Provide adjunct faculty members with regular communication
that reinforces their role in institutional decision-making,
focused on their efforts as a critical factor.
Weekly 1, 5
Provide adjunct faculty professional development opportunities
marketed with a focus on the value / benefits of participation,
specifically with adjunct faculty in mind.
Monthly 3
Become more intentional in including adjunct faculty in
organizational communication.
Weekly 1, 5
Administration would be deliberate in creating spaces on
campus for adjunct faculty to meet with students and
congregate with other staff and faculty members.
Annually, as
part of space
utilization plan
1, 2, 4, 5
Rewarding
Target professional development funds and opportunities for
adjunct faculty.
Per semester 3
Monitoring
Monitor adjunct attendance at professional development and
campus-wide events.
Monthly 1, 2, 4, 5
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
98
Organizational support. One of the main mechanisms for ensuring organizational
support would be the inclusion of adjunct faculty as an agenda item at President’s staff meetings,
allowing upper management to consider adjunct faculty in ongoing organizational issues.
Additionally, the professional development committee could be charged with reporting on efforts
to engage adjunct faculty as part of their annual report.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Following completion of the solutions, adjunct faculty will:
1. Recognize the mission and core values of the organization (D)
2. Understand the organizational structure of the institution, including committees and
shared governance (C)
3. Understand the process for how stakeholders are included in decision-making (D)
4. Understand the process for opting in to professional development activities (D)
5. Understand how to seek out opportunities to participate in college committees (D)
6. Value participation in college committees, governance, or activities (M)
7. Believe their participation in the college makes a difference (M)
Program. To effectively support adjunct faculty in achieving the goals, the program
would need to include: (1) learning added to the on-boarding for new adjunct faculty members;
(2) learning opportunities during paid time targeting continuing adjunct faculty; and (3) a
designated person to develop and implement a communication strategy, such as an email
campaign or newsletter, targeting adjunct faculty.
The current adjunct faculty orientation would be extended and implemented every
semester for newly hired adjunct faculty members to include learning objectives based on the
identified knowledge and motivation gaps. The flex days currently preceding each new semester
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
99
for full-time faculty would be extended to include part-time faculty every semester to include
learning objectives based on the identified knowledge and motivation gaps. The Deans of each
division would identify newly hired adjunct faculty members to participate in the onboarding
segment of the program. The pay schedule could be extended to include flex days in the adjunct
calendar similar to the added flex days for full-time faculty. For adjunct faculty, the extension of
paid flex day could model college districts that have implemented similar paid flex day
expectations for adjunct faculty. This would also need to be a priority negotiated item with the
adjunct union, but could be implemented as optional initially.
Ongoing professional development would continue to be coordinated through the
Professional Development committee. The Professional Development committee should be
expanded to include one adjunct seat on the committee. The Professional Development
committee would be encouraged to find ways to: (1) be inclusive and mindful of adjunct
participation in ongoing professional development opportunities on campus; (2) consider and
implement professional activities that specifically target adjunct faculty; and (3) spearhead
efforts to encourage adjunct faculty to apply for professional development funds to participate in
conferences.
The Director of Communication, Vice President of Instruction, and one assigned
instructional dean will collaborate to develop and implement a communication strategy targeting
adjunct faculty that addresses knowledge and motivation gaps.
The on-boarding element of the learning program would occur in the first semester of
adjunct employment. Other elements of the program would be on-going, particularly in light of
the itinerant nature of adjunct employment. However, the full-cycle of the program could be
considered to be one year for program evaluation purposes.
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
100
Evaluation of the components of learning. Table F4 lists and describes the methods
and activities that will be used to evaluate learning activities for adjunct faculty. It also includes
the timing for assessment.
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
101
Table F4
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge — “I know it.”
Verbal check of knowledge of organizational structure, leaders, and
college priorities.
Following adjunct orientations and
flex day workshops.
Verbal check of knowledge of college decision-making processes,
committees, and governance.
Following adjunct orientation and
flex day workshops
Assess knowledge by introducing and interacting with key
personnel for Q & A during workshops.
During orientations and flex day
workshops
Procedural Skills — “I can do it right now.”
Verbal check-in of knowledge of professional development
procedures and how to find out about professional development
opportunities.
During and following adjunct
orientations and flex day
workshops
Verbal check-in of knowledge of how to engage in college
committees or decision-making bodies as an adjunct faculty
member.
During and following adjunct
orientations and flex day
workshops
Practice performing job aids during training. During orientations and flex day
workshops
Self-talk while completing procedural steps in class. During orientations and flex day
workshops
Attitude — “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Likert scale question: I believe that the workshop on organizational
structure, leadership, and college priorities was worthwhile.
Following adjunct orientation and
flex day workshops
Likert scale question: I believe that the workshop on accessing
professional development opportunities was worthwhile.
Following adjunct orientation and
flex day workshops
Group discussion of the value of information and how it can be
used.
During adjunct orientations and
flex day workshops
Confidence — “I think I can do it on the job.”
Likert scale question: I understand how to participate in college
committees and governance bodies if I choose to.
Following adjunct orientation and
flex day workshops
Q & A Session. During workshop
Commitment — “I will do it on the job.”
Likert scale question: I am likely to participate in ongoing college
professional development.
Following adjunct orientation and
flex day workshops
Likert scale question: I am likely to participate in college
committees and governance groups at the college.
Following adjunct orientation and
flex day workshops.
Group discussion of next steps. During workshop
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
102
Level 1: Reaction
Table F5 describes the methods that will be used to determine how participants react to
the learning events that will be implemented.
Table F5
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Likert scale question: The information from this
workshop on college structure, leadership, and priorities
was interesting to me.
Directly following adjunct
orientation and flex days
activities
Likert scale question: The information from this
workshop on committees, college decision-making and
governance was interesting to me.
Directly following adjunct
orientation and flex day
activities
Check understanding by meeting key college personnel. During training
Relevance
Group discussion. During training
Likert scale question: The information about college
structure, leadership, and priorities was relevant to my
role at the college.
Directly following adjunct
orientation and flex day
activities
Likert scale question: The information shared about
college committees, decision-making, and governance
was relevant to my role at the college.
Directly following adjunct
orientation and flex day
activities.
Customer Satisfaction
Likert scale question: The workshop met my
expectations.
Directly following adjunct
orientations and flex day
activities.
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
103
Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. Directly following learning
activities, a Likert scale instrument will be administered with opportunities for participants to
also share open-ended suggestions and feedback about their learning experience. The questions
on the instrument are designed to assess learning objectives as well as reaction to the learning
program. The instrument collects feedback on Level 1 reactions and Level 2 learning goals from
Kirkpatrick’s New World model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Since the program will
continue in subsequent years, the feedback will be used for continuous program improvement.
Delayed for one semester after program implementation. In addition to formative
assessment which will take place directly following the learning activities, the learning program
will be assessed at a delayed period to better understand if long-term learning has occurred and if
participants have implemented change as a result of learning. Follow-up assessment will occur
via a Qualtrics survey administered via email to participants 90 days after their participation.
The main goal of the delayed assessment is to measure changes to Level 3 Behavior of the
Kirkpatrick’s New World model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Ninety days will give
adjunct faculty members time to engage new learning in ways such as seeking out college
involvement and/or professional development opportunities.
Data Analysis and Reporting
There are three places where presenting the outcomes of this research will be most
important: President’s staff, Academic Senate, and Chancellor’s staff. These decision-making
bodies would be the most effective in affecting institutional change. The goal of the reporting
and data analysis presentation is to demonstrate how program implementation can improve the
experience of adjunct faculty. Through professional development and campus engagement
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
104
opportunities, adjunct faculty will become more engaged in the college culture. The improved
inclusion of adjunct faculty in the college would move the institution toward its organizational
goal of having all employees more engaged in the college.
Summary
Increasing adjunct faculty in the college culture is likely to support larger institutional
goals and can be evaluated using the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016) as described. This evaluation model will allow the institution to make modifications and
adjustments to the program in subsequent years and will provide quantifiable support for its
efficacy. Stakeholders will benefit from the institutional commitment to increasing their role in
the college. The institution will experience movement toward their institutional goal, and
students will ultimately benefit.
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
105
Appendix G: Evaluation Instruments
Adjunct Faculty Evaluation: Immediately after Training
Scale 1–4 (Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree)
1. I believe that the workshop on organizational structure, leadership, and college
priorities was worthwhile. (Level 2)
2. I believe that the workshop on accessing professional development opportunities was
worthwhile. (Level 2)
3. I believe that the workshop on accessing professional development opportunities was
worthwhile. (Level 2)
4. I understand how to participate in college committees if I choose to. (Level 2)
5. I am likely to participate in ongoing college professional development. (Level 3)
6. I am likely to participate in college committees and governance groups at the college.
(Level 3)
7. The information from this workshop on college structure, leadership, and priorities
was interesting to me. (Level 1)
8. The information from this workshop on committee, college governance, and decision-
making was interesting to me. (Level 1)
9. The information from this workshop on college structure, leadership, and priorities
was relevant to my role at the college. (Level 1)
10. The information from this workshop on committee, college governance, and decision-
making was relevant to my role at the college. (Level 1)
11. The workshop met my expectations. (Level 1)
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
106
Adjunct Faculty Evaluation: Delayed 90 Days After Training
Scale 1–5 (Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree)
1. The training I had has been useful to me in this last semester. (Level 2)
2. I have participated in additional college professional development opportunities.
(Level 3)
3. I have participated in committee, governance or campus-wide activities this semester.
(Level 3)
4. As a result of the training, my connection to the college has helped me increase student
success in the classes that I teach. (Level 4)
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
107
References
American Association of University Professors. (2017). Trends in the academic labor force,
1975–2015. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved from
https://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/Academic_Labor_Force_Trends_1975-
2015_0.pdf
Anderman, E., & Anderman, L. (2006). Attributions. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/attribution-theory/
Bakley, A. L., & Brodersen, L. A. (2018). Waiting to become: Adjunct faculty experiences in
multi-campus community colleges. Community College Journal of Research and
Practice, 42(2), 129–145. doi:10.1080/10668926.2017.1279090
Baldwin, R. G., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2011). Contingent faculty as teachers: what we know;
what we need to know. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(11), 1485–1509.
doi:10.1177/0002764211409194
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office. (2013). Annual statewide staffing reports.
Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved from https://datamart.cccco.edu/Faculty-
Staff/Default.aspx
Center for Community College Student Engagement. (2014). Contingent commitments: Bringing
parttime faculty into focus. Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin, Program in
Higher Education Leadership.
Champlin, D. P., & Knoedler, J. (2017). Contingent labor and higher education. Review of
Political Economy, 29(2), 232–248. doi:10.1080/09538259.2017.1316054
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
108
Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (2008). The American community college (5th ed.). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Curtis, J., Mahabir, C., & Vitullo, M. (2016). Sociology faculty members employed part-time in
community colleges: Structural disadvantage, cultural devaluation, and faculty-student
relationships. Teaching Sociology, 44(4), 270–286. doi:10.1177/0092055X16654744
Diegel, B. L. (2013). Perceptions of community college adjunct faculty and division
chairpersons: Support, mentoring, and professional development to sustain academic
quality, community. College Journal of Research and Practice, 37(8), 596–607.
doi:10.1080/10668926.2012.720863
Dolan, D. M., Hall, M. S., Karlsson, C. R., & Martinak, M. L. (2013). Five years later: Maryland
adjuncts tell us (again) who they are and what they want. The Journal of Continuing
Higher Education, 61(1), 35–45. doi:10.1080/07377363.2013.758552
Eagan, M. K., & Jaeger, A. J. (2008). Closing the gate: Part-time faculty instruction in
gatekeeper courses. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 115, 39–53.
doi:10.1002/tl.324
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/
Fagan-Wilen, R., Springer, D. W., Ambrosino, B., & White, B. W. (2006). The support of
adjunct faculty: An academic imperative. Social Work Education, 25(1), 39–51.
doi:10.1080/02615470500477870
Fink, A. (2013). Evidence-based public health practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
109
Gappa, J. M., & Leslie, W. (2002). Part-time faculty: Competent and committed. New Directions
for Community Colleges, 118, 59–68.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Gruenert, S., & Whitaker, T. (2015). School culture rewired: How to define, assess, and
transform it. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Harrington, C., & Schibik, T. (2001). Caveat emptor: Is there a relationship between part-time
faculty utilization and student learning outcomes and retention? Paper presented at the
41st Forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Long Beach, CA. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED456785)
Hoeller, K. (2014). Equality for contingent faculty: Overcoming the two tier system. Nashville,
TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Hurlburt, S., & McGarrah, M. (2017). Shifting academic workforce: Where are the contingent
faculty? New York, NY: TIAA Institute. Retrieved from
https://www.tiaainstitute.org/sites/default/files/presentations/2017-
02/shifting_academic_workforce.pdf
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2013). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jolley, M. R., Cross, E., & Bryant, M. (2014). A critical challenge: The engagement and
assessment of contingent, part-time adjunct faculty professors in United States
community colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 38, 218–
230. doi:10.1080/10668926.2014.851969
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
110
Karim, A. (2014). The increasing usage of professional contingent workers: A review. The
Journal of Global Business Management, 10(1), 33–37.
Kezar, A. (2012). Spanning the great divide between tenure-track and non-tenure-track faculty.
Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 44(6), 6–13.
doi:10.1080/00091383.2012.728949
Kezar, A., & Maxey, D. (2013). The changing academic workforce. Trusteeship, 21(3), 15–21.
Kezar, A., & Sam, C. (2013). Institutionalizing equitable policies and practices for contingent
faculty. The Journal of Higher Education, 84(1), 56–87.
Kimmel, K. M., & Fairchild, J. L. (2017). A full-time dilemma: Examining the experiences of
part-time faculty. The Journal of Effective Teaching, 17(1), 52–65.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.
Kramer, A., Gloeckner, G., & Jacoby, D. (2014). Roads scholars: Part-time faculty job
satisfaction in community colleges. Community College Journal of Research and
Practice, 38(4), 287–299, doi:10.1080/10668926.2010.485005
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212–218.
Kuh, G. D., Nelson, T. F., & Umbach, P. D. (2004). Aligning faculty activities. Liberal
Education, 90(4), 24–31.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
111
Maynard, D. C., & Joseph, T. A. (2006). Are all part-time faculty underemployed? The influence
of faculty status preference on satisfaction and commitment. Journal of Higher
Education, 55, 139–154, doi:10.1007/s10734-006-9039-z
McEwan, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
McLaughlin, F. (2005). Adjunct faculty at the community college: Second-class professoriate?
Teaching English in the Two Year College, 33(2), 185–193.
Meixner, C., Kruck, S. E., & Madden, L. T. (2010). Inclusion of part-time faculty for the benefit
of faculty and students. Journal of College Teaching, 58(4), 141–147.
doi:10.1080/87567555.2010.484032
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Morton, D. (2012). Adjunct faculty embraced: The institution’s responsibility. Christian
Education Journal, 9(2), 396–407.
Ott, M. C., & Dippold, L. (2018a). Adjunct employment preference: Who wants to be full-time
faculty? Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 42(3), 190–203.
doi:10.1080/10668926.2017.1283259
Ott, M. C., & Dippold, L. (2018b). Part-time faculty involvement in decision-making.
Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 42(6), 452–455.
doi:10.1080/10668926.2017.1321057
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667–686.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
112
Rhoades, G. (1996). Reorganizing the faculty workforce for flexibility: Part-time professional
labor. The Journal of Higher Education, 67(6), 626–659, doi:10.2307/2943815
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Salkind, N. J. (2017). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics (6th ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2009). Interest. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/interest/
Shulman, S. (2019). The costs and benefits of adjunct justice: A critique of Brennan and
Magness. Journal of Business Ethics, 155(1), 163–171. doi:10.1007/s10551-017-3498-2
Smith, S. (2012). Supporting California’s community college teaching faculty: Improving
working conditions, compensation, and the quality of undergraduate education.
Berkeley, CA: University Professional and Technical Employees. Retrieved from
http://www.upte.org/cc/supportingfaculty.pdf
Spaniel, S., & Scott, J. (2013). Community college adjunct faculty inclusion: Variations by
institution type. Research in Higher Education Journal, 21, 1–19.
Stenerson, J., Blanchard, L., Fassiotto, M., Hernandez, M., & Muth, A. (2010). The role of
adjuncts in the professoriate. Peer Review, 12(3), 15.
Thirolf, K. Q. (2012). The faculty identities of community college adjuncts teaching in the
humanities: A discourse analysis study. Community College Journal of Research and
Practice, 36(4), 269–278. doi:10.1080/10668926.2012.637864
INCLUSION OF ADJUNCT FACULTY
113
Townsend, B. K., & Twombley, S. B. (2007). Community college faculty: Overlooked and
undervalued. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Wallin, D. L. (2004). Valuing professional colleagues: Adjunct faculty in community and
technical colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 28(4), 373–
391. doi:10.1080/10668920490424087
Walpole, M. (2003). Socioeconomic status and college: How SES affects college experiences
and outcomes. The Review of Higher Education, 27(1), 45–73.
Walton, I. (2004). 75/25 — the faculty obligation number or why are we not all there yet?
Sacramento, CA: Academic Senate of California Community Colleges. Retrieved from
https://www.asccc.org/content/7525-faculty-obligation-number-or-why-are-we-not-all-
there-yet
Weiner, B. (1972). Attribution theory, achievement motivation, and the educational process.
Review of Educational Research, 42(2), 203–215. doi:10.3102/00346543042002203
Weisman, I. M., & Marr, J. W., Jr. (2002). Building community: The second century, same
challenge. New Directions for Community Colleges, 118, 99–107.
Wyles, B. A. (1998). Adjunct faculty in the community college: Realities and challenges. New
Directions for Higher Education, 104, 89-93. doi:10.1002/he.10409
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This study employed a mixed methods approach to study how adjunct faculty are included in the college culture at a California community college. Community colleges are relying more heavily on adjunct faculty for classroom instruction. Survey and focus group data were collected from adjunct faculty to assess the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors that affect adjunct faculty participation in the college outside of the classroom and to better understand what factors affect adjunct faculty perceptions of their inclusion in the college culture. Surveys were completed by 91 adjunct faculty members and six of those adjunct faculty members participated in focus groups designed to triangulate survey responses. The findings of this study revealed gaps in institutional knowledge and motivational gaps that served as hurdles to adjunct faculty inclusion. Additionally, this study identified organizational barriers that impacted the active engagement of adjunct faculty outside of the classroom, affecting adjunct faculty perceptions of their inclusion in the college. The findings of this study emphasize the need for professional development and increased adjunct-focused communication as core recommendations to enhance adjunct faculty inclusion in the college culture.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Developmental education pathway success: a study on the intersection of adjunct faculty and teaching metacognition
PDF
Strengths-based pedagogy for culturally marginalized groups
PDF
Closing the completion gap for African American students at California community colleges: a research study
PDF
Lack of diversity in leadership: An organizational problem
PDF
(Re)Imagining STEM instruction: an examination of culturally relevant andragogical practices to eradicate STEM inequities among racially minoritized students in community colleges
PDF
Gender beyond the binary: transgender student success and the role of faculty
PDF
Underrepresentation of African American faculty in higher education: an improvement model dissertation
PDF
Preparing university faculty for distance education: an evaluation study
PDF
“Black” workplace belonging: an examination of the lived experiences of Black faculty sense of belonging factors in community colleges
PDF
Full-time distance education faculty perspectives on web accessibility in online instructional content in a California community college context: an evaluation study
PDF
Faculty experiences: sense of belonging for sexual and gender minority college students
PDF
Cultivating culturally competent educators
PDF
Implementing problem-based learning to develop student supply chain skills
PDF
High attrition rate of preschool teachers in Hong Kong: an evaluation study
PDF
Building employers’ capacity to support competitive employment for adults with autism: a promising practice study
PDF
The influence of executive leadership on community college completion rates
PDF
News media literacy among communication majors at Christian University: an evaluation study
PDF
The role of international school teacher leaders in building leadership capacity within their teams
PDF
Representation in the teaching force: recruitment of teachers of color
PDF
Social work faculty practices in writing instruction: an exploratory study
Asset Metadata
Creator
Gaetje, Lisa Mayes
(author)
Core Title
Inclusion of adjunct faculty in the community college culture
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)
Publication Date
01/16/2020
Defense Date
10/30/2019
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Adjunct,community college,culture,engagement,faculty,inclusion,OAI-PMH Harvest,participation
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Stowe, Kathy (
committee chair
), Datta, Monique (
committee member
), Picus, Lawrence (
committee member
)
Creator Email
gaetje@usc.edu,lisagaetje@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-260402
Unique identifier
UC11674924
Identifier
etd-GaetjeLisa-8122.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-260402 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-GaetjeLisa-8122.pdf
Dmrecord
260402
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Gaetje, Lisa Mayes
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
community college
faculty
inclusion
participation