The body of research on academic staffing practices in higher education is growing, and so too are arguments that we need a change of course.  How do we make that happen?

A study released at the Association for the Study of Higher Education's annual research conference entitled "Institutionalizing Equitable Policies and Practices for Contingent Faculty" attempts to answer that question. Adrianna Kezar, an associate professor of higher education at the University of Southern California, and Cecil Sam, a USC graduate assistant in higher education, studied 30 institutions to see how changes in institutional practices could lead to a more supportive environment for contingent faculty. They believe that their study is among the first to move from calling for change to actually documenting changes that are taking place.

In picking the institutions to study, Kezar and Sam looked for places that had promising practices and showed progress in their policies on contingent faculty. But their close examination showed that institutions that were furthest along the progressive path were those where faculty focused not on a set of working conditions, but on changing the overall climate to be more inclusive of contingent faculty in institutional life and governance.

Recently, FACE Talk asked Kezar to talk about the results of her study.  Click on Read More to read the full interview.

FACE Talk:  Can you tell us a bit about your research background and why you became interested in looking at issues surrounding the treatment of contingent faculty?

Kezar:  Well, I began my career as a contingent faculty member.  Also, at a number of institutions where I've been employed, the percentage of contingent faculty has risen dramatically during the time period I was there.  I also noticed that contingent faculty were largely invisible and that no policies and practices were being put in place to ensure their success.

FACE Talk:  What questions were you addressing in this paper?

Kezar:  In the paper, we are trying to further the research related to contingent faculty members.  There's been lots of information about demographic trends, reasons for the rise in contingent faculty, a little bit about contingent faculty experience, and some recommendations for professionalizing and including nontenure track faculty, however, there has been no research on efforts to actually create changes on campus. Our hope was to document campuses that have made forward progress to serve as models for other institutions. 

What we found, is that many fewer institutions have made progress than we had hoped.  There are some role models, but not a lot.  I think what we found interesting in our pursuit of models was being able to identify some of the challenges that emerge along the way, such as the difficulty of mobilizing contingent faculty, the various barriers and challenges they face, and the importance of changing institutional culture (getting tenure track faculty and administrators to value contingent faculty) to make progress.

FACE Talk:  You state that institutional culture has not been very supportive of contingent faculty--sometimes that lack of support is overt and other times subtle. Give us some examples.

Kezar:  The institutional culture that doesn't support contingent faculty is ubiquitous.  The fact that institutions have no policies and practices in place is the subtle way they are not supportive.  The more overt way that they are not supportive is the creation of the two class system. This is where contingent faculty are considered second-class citizens and often are stereotyped as not as competent as tenure-track faculty and unable to get tenure-track faculty jobs because they lack the credentials or qualifications rather than because the job market is impossible for getting tenure-track positions.

FACE Talk:  Did you find evidence that institutions are improving with regard to policies supporting contingent faculty?

Kezar:  Yes, there are institutions making small progress on issues such as providing orientation for non-tenure track faculty, which is becoming more commonplace, or a well-thought-out handbook.  Quite a few institutions now offer professional development related to teaching for nontenure track faculty.  And slowly, nontenure track faculty are being included in governance in more meaningful ways.  Salary and benefits are increasing on campuses, particularly those that unionize.  I expected more multiyear contracts, more seniority clauses (although that is increasing), but in many areas where we hoped to see more changes, they did not appear to be happening. But frankly, institutions are making less progress than we expected after 20 years of calls for improved policies and practices. Without the unions, very little progress would be seen.  Non-unionized campuses seem even slower to address the issues.

FACE Talk:  What is helping some institutions move in a progressive direction with regard to these policies and what are some of the barriers hindering institutions?

Kezar:  As noted above, the unions are extremely helpful in bringing attention to the need for improved policies and practices on campuses.  Contingent faculty leadership is also one of the most important factors.  Generally, changes are not happening because administrators or tenure-track faculty members recognize that they should make changes on campus. Changes are happening because of strong contingent faculty leadership.   Contingent faculty leaders have been good at leveraging the media, students and external communities to apply pressure to get needed changes.

Involvement in national organizations such as COCAL and the New Faculty Majority has also been extremely helpful in strengthening and supporting the contingent faculty leadership on individual campuses. Administrators and tenure-track faculty members are significant barriers to contingent faculty leaders implementing change. However, some campuses do manage to get administrative and tenure-track faculty allies who have really been helpful in implementing changes in policy. 

Another major challenge is mobilizing contingent faculty who are an extremely heterogeneous group, often lack shared interests, have incredibly hectic schedules, and sometimes have internalized the negative messages placed on them by tenure-track faculty.

FACE Talk:  You state in the paper that a key moment for institutions to move from mobilizing to implementing policies and practices was when "a clear connection between contingent faculty work conditions and educational outcomes and learning environment for students" was made.  Can you talk a little but more about what those rationales were?

Kezar:  Sure, contingent faculty leaders who were successful in institutionalizing changes in policy and practices for contingent faculty recognize that tenure-track faculty members and administrators were less likely to be motivated by the message that contingent faculty were treated inequitably.  While this would reach some people, making the connection between contingent faculty working conditions and student learning mattered to all tenure-track faculty and many administrators.  Examples would be--contingent faculty are often not paid for office hours, may not be available to write letters of recommendation, and do not have the ability to craft syllabi and choose texts that best suit a course.

FACE Talk:  You talk a good deal about the importance of leadership on the campus to effectuate change, but at the same time most of the impetus for change appears to come from the contingent faculty themselves or organizations representing them--that is, the change is bottom up.  Is that a fair assessment?  If so, what incentives might be necessary to get institutional leaders on board for larger scale change?

Kezar:  Yes, right now, most of the leadership is bottom up, supported by unions and other national organizations.   I think the incentive or motivation to get institutional leaders on board is the connection to the learning mission of the institution.  They have to recognize that these often unintentional changes they have made in staffing can have huge consequences for meeting the institutional mission.  I think some shaming might also be necessary.  I hate to put it that way, but institutions must be held accountable for choices. The shift to a largely untenured faculty with no planning or foresight is, to  my mind, irresponsible and perhaps unethical. Institutional leaders have to recognize that this behavior is egregious and feel the pressure to change.  That shaming likely will come from student, media, community members, and enlightened board members.

FACE Talk:  Did you see signs that some institutions are turning the corner? What were the most promising examples of cultural shifts? Does unionization make a difference?

Kezar:  Unionization makes a difference. Every major study done has shown that unionized campuses have better working conditions than non-unionized for contingent faculty (See Hollenshead et al, 2007 national study).

Few institutions are turning the corner to institutionalize change, but many are mobilizing and beginning implementation.  Obviously, the recession does not help.  Just as there is national momentum, the economy tanked. Campuses that institutionalized changes did so several years ago when times were better. I think we will really be harder pressed to make changes that cost money.  But many of the promising practices cost little money.  Including contingent faculty in governance costs little if any money.  Orientation, mentoring programs, professional development, administrative support--all have very minimal costs.  Increases in salary and benefits will be harder to achieve.  On the other hand, campuses should really press for governance now so that when money is available, they will be at the table to make sure they get their share.  That is,  progress can still be made, but strategies might change to focus on making contingent faculty a more powerful voice so that when institutions have more money, they will distribute it equitably.  Also, there is still money to be had now, instructional costs are at an all time low.  Money is being redirected away from faculty salaries.  If faculty are aware of this through governance, they can be in a better position at the bargaining table.

FACE Talk:  Based on what you've learned from your research, tell us what actions are most productive for faculty members-both full- and part-time-to take to change the working and learning climate on their campuses?

Kezar:  Nine things.

1. Focus on values like respect first as noted throughout.  Address climate and culture of campus related to contingents.
2. Use data and key events (like unfair firing of a contingent) to mobilize other faculty.
3. Know other faculty and administrators respond to data and best practices from peer institutions.
4. Create a long term plan of action based on campus history and needs. Think big!
5. Create a task force to keep the issue in leaders minds. Changes should be happening all the time, not just when at the bargaining table.  
6. Anticipate resistance and plan strategies to overcome--use external support like the media, build campus allies, use model departments and other levers to move forward.  
7. Know that pockets of resistance are just that--pockets. Do not let them overwhelm your efforts. 
8. Be patient. These changes take a long time. Be strategic and build allies over time. Change will happen. 
9. Realize that you are not alone.  There are numerous networks out there where people share the same concerns and goals and can provide much needed information and support.

FACE Talk:  Thanks for your time and for the work you are doing.