Using Part-time Faculty - Florida State University

THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
USE OF PART-TIME/ADJUNCT FACULTY IN COMMUNITY COLLEGES:
A MULTI-CASE STUDY OF THREE FLORIDA COMMUNITY COLLEGES
By
Dorothea Taylor Bogert
A Dissertation submitted to the
Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Awarded
Spring Semester, 2004
Copyright © 2004
Dorothea Taylor Bogert
All Rights Reserved

The members of the Committee approved the dissertation of Dorothea Taylor Bogert defended
on October 2, 2003.
Approved:
Carolyn Herrington, Chairperson, Educational Leadership
ii
Joseph C. Beckham
Professor Directing Dissertation
James P. Sampson
Outside Committee Member
Barbara A. Mann
Committee Member
Beverly L. Bower
Committee Member
The office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members.

This work is lovingly dedicated to my family: my husband, Theodore L. Bogert, Sr.; my
mother, Dorothy Taylor; my siblings, Cindy, Jay, and Sherri; Michael, David and Christina; my
nieces and nephews, Jacob, Jenna, Jesse, Jordan, and Gwyneth; and to the memory of my father,
John W. Taylor, Sr., to whom I made a promise that I could not break.
iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
In early 1995, my father and I were discussing my doctoral work, and he asked me to
promise him that I would finish my Ph.D., and I made the promise. On April 13, 1995, he
passed away, and in his infinite wisdom, left me with a promise that I had to fulfill. I have been
on this journey of doctoral work for many years, and I would not have been able to complete it
without the support of numerous individuals. I have been extraordinarily fortunate to have the
support of so many tremendous people throughout this endeavor. Although it is impossible to
thank all of those who contributed, I will always remember with gratitude the assistance of these
wonderful teachers, colleagues, family, and friends.
I would first like to thank my doctoral committee. Dr. Joseph Beckham, to whom I am
especially indebted, I thank you, first and foremost, for your perseverance and patience with me.
You have been a friend and mentor throughout my years at FSU, and my respect for your
intellect and teaching continues to grow. Your insight and guidance throughout this process has
been indispensable. Your input, advice, compassion, and direction have helped me to reach my
goal. You have taught me more than I can acknowledge about academic professionalism,
research, and mentorship. To Dr. Barbara Mann, you have been such a significant part of all my
graduate work. Your practitioner’s perspective and reassurance have been much appreciated
throughout this process. To Dr. Beverly Bowers, with your expertise in community colleges,
you have given such noteworthy contributions to this study. I thank you for sharing your
knowledge with me. Finally, to Dr. Jim Sampson, thank you for serving as my outside
committee member. Your input and insight into this research has truly helped to improve the
study. Your willingness to step into this role so quickly and provide such helpful contributions
has been a true asset to my work.
Having been an adjunct faculty member myself, I understand the difficulties often faced
by adjuncts, and I am especially aware of the time constraints of these unique individuals. I
iv

would like to thank the adjunct faculty who gave so willingly of their valuable time to participate
in this study and discuss the issues they faced so candidly. I would also like to thank the
administrators who agreed to discuss these issues forthrightly and the institutions who gave me
access to and usage of their campuses.
I would like to thank the assistant moderators who helped me in the focus groups,
Dorothy Taylor, Sherri Taylor, and Betty Gene Haller. Your assistance provided me the
opportunity to focus on the important aspects of the study. Additionally, a special thank you
goes to Paula Aubin, Lisa Williams, and Mary Jack, who took on the very difficult task of
transcribing the many hours of focus group and interview tapes. I would not have been able to
complete this work without their assistance.
I would also like to extend a special note of thanks to the following individuals: Dr.
Dotti Bressi, whose friendship, encouragement, and “pep” talks throughout all my research
topics helped me to continue to pursue and reach my goal. I would not have made it to where I
am without your constant encouragement and aid; Dr. Sonya Joseph, whose expertise in
community colleges and insight into the world of adjuncts was invaluable; Dr. Richard
O’Sullivan, whose interest in my study, encouragement to continue, and willingness to assist me
is much appreciated; Dr. David Leslie, whose previous work inspired this endeavor—you will
always be the Buddha of higher education; Dr. Mary Pankowski, whose prodding and
encouragement began this great journey for the Ph.D. and who has set a remarkable example of
pursuing one’s dreams; Dr. Sylvia Fleischman, who was always willing to take time from her
busy schedule to help me with finding needed information; Lucy Hamilton-Duncan, your
friendship throughout our graduate work and beyond has been priceless; and to my many friends
who stuck through this long process with me with unceasing encouragement and support:
Patricia Bausch, Charysse Wiley O’Donnell, Debbie Roof Negrete, Beth Rossi, Traci Bradley
Gouveia, Erik and Pati Pyle, Todd and Kerri Fussell, and many others.
I would like to thank my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ to whom I give all honor and
glory for this work. His unconditional love and forgiveness has allowed me to make mistakes
and move beyond my shortcomings to reach a much sought after goal.
A profound and heartfelt thank you is extended to my family. Their constant prayers,
prodding, and encouragement helped me move through and complete the process. To my Mom,
you have supported me financially, emotionally, physically, and spiritually. I will always be
v

grateful for your unconditional love and listening ear. To Cindy, you have supported me through
continuous prayer and encouragement even when not fully understanding the why or what of the
work. You are a wonderful sister and an incredible friend. To Jay, your wisdom and objective
questioning of my work helped to push me beyond my limits, and you have helped me to look
outside the boundaries and question everything. You have been brother, friend, and teacher. To
Sherri, your indefatigable drive, perseverance, and commitment to your field of study and work
have been an inspiration. You have been a wonderful friend and great sister. To David and
Christina, you are not only a wonderful brother-in-law and sister-in-law but also great friends.
Thank you for all your support. To Michael, thank you for accepting me as part of your family
and making me feel so welcome. To Jacob, Jenna, Jesse, Jordan, and Gwyneth, I hope that my
journey will encourage you to set your goals high and pursue your dreams regardless of the
obstacles you may encounter. I also hope that you will make it your goal to pursue your
education to the highest level possible and to never settle for being ordinary or average. You
must always remember that “to whom much is given, much is required,” and you have been
given so much talent, intellect, love, and support. Remember to always pursue excellence.
Finally, I would like to extend a special thank you to my husband, Theodore L. Bogert,
Sr. Ted, your unconditional love for me is truly the greatest gift I have ever received. Although
reaching this goal has been a part of my life for many years, the joy of having you as my
husband, best friend, confidant, and love of my life is a far greater reward than any diploma or
degree that I could receive. Through your encouragement, emotional and financial support, real
world insight, and much needed frank discussions, you have helped me to reach my goal.
Knowing you were always there with love and support was more than I could have ever hoped,
and I will never be able to repay you for all you have given me.
To all those who have helped me in this undertaking, may you find many blessings in this
life. May you find prosperity, health, and happiness, and may you be rewarded 100 fold for what
you have given to me.
vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................................ xii
ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................. xiii
1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................1
Description of Problem....................................................................................................... 1
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 2
Part-Time Faculty Defined ......................................................................................... 3
Florida’s Community College System (FLCCS)........................................................ 4
Significance of the Study.................................................................................................... 6
Definitions .......................................................................................................................... 7
2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE............................................................................................10
Introduction....................................................................................................................... 10
National Perspective ......................................................................................................... 11
Taxonomies....................................................................................................................... 12
Tuckman’s Taxonomy .............................................................................................. 12
Biles and Tuckman’s Taxonomy .............................................................................. 13
Gappa and Leslie’s Taxonomy ................................................................................. 13
Characteristics of Part-time Faculty ................................................................................. 14
Age............................................................................................................................ 14
Gender....................................................................................................................... 14
Ethnicity.................................................................................................................... 15
Marital Status............................................................................................................ 16
Educational Level and Rank ..................................................................................... 16
Part-Time Faculty Issues .................................................................................................. 16
Recruitment and Hiring ............................................................................................ 17
Socialization and Integration .................................................................................... 18
Compensation and Benefits ...................................................................................... 20
Job Security............................................................................................................... 22
Evaluation ................................................................................................................. 23
Reasons for Teaching Part-time........................................................................................ 24
Advantages of Using Part-time Faculty............................................................................ 25
vii

Fiscal Benefit ............................................................................................................ 25
Expertise ................................................................................................................... 27
Disadvantages of Using Part-time Faculty ....................................................................... 27
Effect on Full-time Faculty....................................................................................... 28
Professionalism of Faculty........................................................................................ 28
Quality of Teaching .................................................................................................. 29
Impact on Students.................................................................................................... 31
Critique of Key Research.................................................................................................. 31
Job Satisfaction: A Theoretical Framework .................................................................... 40
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 434
3. METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES................................................................................45
Introduction....................................................................................................................... 45
Overview of Data Collection ............................................................................................ 45
Assumptions of Qualitative Research............................................................................... 46
Trustworthiness................................................................................................................. 47
Transferability........................................................................................................... 47
Credibility ................................................................................................................. 49
Dependability............................................................................................................ 53
Confirmability........................................................................................................... 54
Audit Trail................................................................................................................. 54
Authenticity ...................................................................................................................... 55
Fairness ..................................................................................................................... 55
Ontological Authenticity........................................................................................... 55
Educative Authenticity ............................................................................................. 56
Catalytic Authenticity............................................................................................... 56
Tactical Authenticity................................................................................................. 56
Data Collection Protocol................................................................................................... 56
Site Selection ............................................................................................................ 56
Entry.......................................................................................................................... 57
Reciprocity................................................................................................................ 58
Role Management ..................................................................................................... 58
Data Collection Method – Individual Interviews ..................................................... 59
Data Collection Method – Focus Groups ................................................................. 61
Data Collection Method – Documentation ............................................................... 67
Ethical Considerations .............................................................................................. 67
Pilot Study................................................................................................................. 68
Data Analysis.................................................................................................................... 69
Organizing Data........................................................................................................ 69
Generating Themes, Categories, & Patterns............................................................. 70
Testing Emerging Hypotheses .................................................................................. 70
Searching for Alternative Explanations.................................................................... 71
Limitations and Assumptions of the Study....................................................................... 71
viii

4. RESEARCH FINDINGS ...........................................................................................................73
Overview........................................................................................................................... 73
Participants........................................................................................................................ 74
Access, Location, and Time of Focus Groups .......................................................... 75
Demographic Characteristics and Academic Backgrounds.............................................. 77
Age............................................................................................................................ 77
Gender....................................................................................................................... 78
Ethnicity.................................................................................................................... 78
Educational Level ..................................................................................................... 78
Fields of Study .......................................................................................................... 80
Work Experience ...................................................................................................... 80
Career Aspirations .................................................................................................... 82
Reasons for Teaching Part-time........................................................................................ 86
Love of Teaching ...................................................................................................... 86
Employed Full-time Outside of Community College Teaching............................... 87
Seeking Full-time Position........................................................................................ 87
Desired Experience ................................................................................................... 88
Wanted Only Part-time ............................................................................................. 89
Flexibility and Autonomy......................................................................................... 89
Income....................................................................................................................... 91
Up-to-Date Knowledge and Real-life Input.............................................................. 92
Prestige...................................................................................................................... 93
Students..................................................................................................................... 93
Community ............................................................................................................... 94
Personal Satisfaction................................................................................................. 95
Miscellaneous ........................................................................................................... 95
Job Satisfactions and Dissatisfactions .............................................................................. 96
Satisfaction with Teaching........................................................................................ 96
Satisfaction with Students......................................................................................... 97
Satisfaction with the Institution ................................................................................ 99
Satisfaction with Full-Time Faculty and Other Adjuncts....................................... 101
Satisfaction with Department or Program Area...................................................... 104
Satisfaction with Compensation & Benefits........................................................... 110
Satisfaction with Recruitment, Orientation, and Integration .................................. 128
Satisfaction with Evaluations.................................................................................. 140
Satisfaction with Other Jobs and Roles .................................................................. 144
Satisfaction with Being an Adjunct ........................................................................ 144
Overall Satisfaction................................................................................................. 146
Perceptions and Experiences .......................................................................................... 146
Job Satisfaction Taxonomy..................................................................................... 147
Institutional Influences and Policies............................................................................... 148
Institutional Polices................................................................................................. 148
Non-institutional Influences and Policies............................................................... 149
ix

5. CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR
RESEARCH............................................................................................................................152
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 152
Synopsis of the Findings............................................................................................. 152
Conceptual Framework....................................................................................................... 155
Theme Analysis and Interpretation..................................................................................... 158
Expanding a Previous Study ....................................................................................... 158
Implications ........................................................................................................................ 160
Implications for State Policy....................................................................................... 160
Implications for Community Colleges........................................................................ 161
Practice versus Policy ......................................................................................................... 162
Comparison of Institutional Practices to FLCCS Guidelines and Gappa and Leslie’s
Recommendations....................................................................................................... 164
Recommendations............................................................................................................... 168
Improve Compensation............................................................................................... 168
Develop Some Type of Benefits Program .................................................................. 169
Provide a Supportive Infrastructure............................................................................ 170
Provide a Thorough Orientation ................................................................................. 171
Provide for Integration and Socialization ................................................................... 171
Improve Methods of Evaluation ................................................................................. 173
Provide for Quality Control ........................................................................................ 174
Provide Some Form of Job Security ........................................................................... 174
Improve Recruitment and Hiring Policies .................................................................. 175
Directions for Future Research........................................................................................... 175
Summary............................................................................................................................. 176
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 177
APPENDIX A: Florida’s 28 Community Colleges ........................................................ 177
APPENDIX B: District Black Colleges That Merged with the FLCCS......................... 178
APPENDIX C: FLCCS Facts ......................................................................................... 179
APPENDIX D: Gappa and Leslie’s Recommended Practices ....................................... 181
APPENDIX E: Audit Trail Categories ........................................................................... 183
APPENDIX F: Sample of Memo to Adjuncts ................................................................ 184
APPENDIX G: Questionnaires used in campus interviews ........................................... 185
APPENDIX H: Seating Arrangements ........................................................................... 192
APPENDIX I: Assistant Moderator’s Responsibilities .................................................. 193
APPENDIX J: Informed Consent Form ......................................................................... 194
APPENDIX K: Part-time/Adjunct Faculty Demographic Survey.................................. 195
APPENDIX L: Opening and Closing Focus Groups...................................................... 196
APPENDIX M: Human Subjects Research Approval Letter ......................................... 197
APPENDIX N: Guidelines For Effective Use Of Part-Time Faculty Florida Community
Colleges ................................................................................................. 198
x

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................201
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................215
xi

LIST OF TABLES
1. Credit and Non-Credit Hours Delivered by FLCCS 6
2. Number of Faculty in the FLCCS by Gender and Race 6
3. Focus Group and Telephone Interview Participants by Institution 75
4. Ages of Participants by Ethnicity and Gender 78
5. Areas of Study for Bachelor’s, Master’s, and Doctoral Degrees of Participant 79
6. Subjects Participants Taught by Degree Level and Gender 81
7. Numbers of Years as Adjunct by Degree Level and Gender 82
8. RCC Pay Schedule 114
9. Adjunct Pay By Institution and Degree Level 115
10. Hourly Pay Rate of Adjuncts by Institution and Degree Level 115
11. Full-Time Instructional Personnel Salaries by Institutions and Degree Levels
(Fall 2003) 117
12. Hourly Rate of Full-Time Faculty by Institution and Degree Level 118
13. Comparison of Hourly Pay Between Full- and Part-Time Faculty 118
14. Per Course Pay Rate for Adjuncts at Full-Time Faculty Hourly Rate
(140 Hours Per Semester) 119
15. Per Course Pay Rate for Adjuncts at Full-Time Faculty Hourly Rate
(48 House Per Semester) 119
xii

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to explore the use of part-time faculty at three Florida
community colleges using a case study design. The in-depth analysis helped to describe who
serves as part-time faculty and illuminate the reasons they teach as adjuncts. In addition, the
researcher analyzed the policies in use for part-time faculty at selected community colleges in
Florida and determined how adjunct faculty are affected by these policies. Finally, within the
context of the community college, the study analyzed the job satisfaction of the adjuncts as it
pertains to job satisfaction theory and how their perceptions and experiences differed.
A multi-site case study was conducted at three community colleges in Florida. These
institutions were designated as Rural Community College (RCC), Transfer Community College
(TCC), and Urban Community College (UCC). Each institution was selected based on
availability, demographics, and location. Focus groups, one-on-one interviews, and telephone
interviews were utilized to collect data for interpretation. Collected data was used to address the
following research questions: 1. What are the demographic characteristics and academic
backgrounds of the participants of the study in the three community colleges studied? 2. What
are the reasons for teaching part-time of the faculty members in the three community colleges
studied? 3. What are the job satisfactions and dissatisfactions of the part-time faculty in the
three community colleges studied? 4. Are there differences in the perceptions or experiences of
the community college part-time faculty studied? 5. What are the institutional influences and
policies affecting the use of part-time faculty at the community colleges studied?
In analyzing the data, the following demographics of the 26 participants were found:
Fifty percent of the participants were between the ages of 46 and 60. The gender breakdown was
62% women and 38% men, and 77% of the participants were white. All but two adjuncts had
their Master’s degree, and five held doctoral degrees. Fields of study ranged from mathematics
to remedial level reading with more than 10 fields of study represented. There was a combined
total of 170 years of adjunct teaching experience with a mean number of years of eight. Eleven
xiii

participants worked only as part-time instructors, and nine of the participants worked full-time
outside of teaching. The remaining adjuncts worked as part-time instructors with additional part-
time jobs. Thirty-eight percent of the adjuncts were pursuing full-time positions, and 15% had
other career aspirations; the remaining 47% were content with working as part-time faculty.
Numerous reasons were given by the participants for teaching part-time. Some of the
most discussed reasons included the following: love of teaching, employed full-time outside the
institution, seeking a full-time position, desired experience, wanted part-time only position, liked
the flexibility, needed income, enjoyed working with students, enjoyed the community college
environment, and derived great personal satisfaction from teaching.
There seemed to be a high level of satisfaction with teaching itself and with teaching
students at the institutions. Satisfaction with the institutions varied with dissatisfaction usually
resulting from the level of pay and number of classes they could teach. The majority of the
participants had high levels of satisfaction with the full-time faculty they encountered. However,
satisfaction with other adjuncts was lower because many of the adjuncts had little or no
interaction with other adjuncts. One of the highest levels of satisfaction came with support
faculty, the office assistants and secretaries. Most of the adjuncts were satisfied with the
department administrators. Satisfaction with office facilities varied. Dissatisfaction was the
highest in those who were looking for a full-time position and wanted to be more integrated into
the institution. Recruitment, orientation, and integration could all be improved according to the
participants. Satisfaction with integration often depended on whether or not the individual was
interested in a full-time position.
The greatest level of dissatisfaction was with compensation and benefits. For those who
were dependent on the income of the part-time position, income and benefits, to a lesser degree,
were significant motivators, and the low level of pay impacted their satisfaction levels adversely.
For those in full-time positions or with outside income sources, income served more as a hygiene
factor. All adjuncts felt they should be paid more for what they were doing. For those who
needed medical benefits, there was a high level of dissatisfaction with the lack of benefits.
Another area of dissatisfaction was with evaluations. Although most of the adjuncts
appreciated and utilized the student evaluations, they wanted more input from their peers and
superiors. For those who had been evaluated by a faculty or supervisor, the adjunct often felt
that the evaluation was conducted in such a way as to fulfill an obligation instead of providing
xiv

useful and constructive criticism and suggestions. Overall, the adjuncts were satisfied, and even
with the problems they faced, the majority of them admitted that they would continue to teach as
an adjunct.
In analyzing the findings, the separating factors were dependency on income and the
perceived equitability of the income in respect to full-time faculty’s salaries. All part-time
faculty felt they should be paid more for what they were doing whether or not their satisfaction
level with income was high, and they felt their pay should be equivalent to full-time faculty.
Based on the findings, a job taxonomy was created that categorized adjuncts into three distinct
groups: 1. Dependents were teaching because they needed income and many needed the
benefits, too. Also, teaching as an adjunct was the primary, if not sole, source of income. Their
perceptions were influenced significantly by their need for money or need for a full-time position
with benefits. 2. Stables were adjuncts who had other sources of income either from a full-time
job, their spouses, retirement, or other ventures, which provided financial stability. Stables
seemed to be much more satisfied with every aspect of being an adjunct. 3. Interims included
the remainder of the individuals, most of who were in transitional phases in their life.
The following recommendations were suggested to improve job satisfaction levels among
adjuncts: 1) improve compensation, 2) develop a benefits program, 3) develop a strong
infrastructure, 4) improve orientation, integration, and socialization, 5) improve the evaluation
process, 5) provide for quality control, 6) provide for job security, and 7) improve the
recruitment and hiring process.
xv

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Part-time faculty have become a critical component of postsecondary institutions’
academic faculties over the last few decades (Banachowski, 1996a, 1996b; Gappa & Leslie,
1993; Lee, 1997; Leslie, 1998a, 1998b, 1998c; Roueche, Roueche, & Milliron, 1995, 1996a,
1996b). With the increasing fiscal constraints of institutions, faculty labor market factors,
shifting demands for academic programs, and the growing student population, it appears the use
of part-time faculty (also referred to as adjunct faculty) will continue to grow well into the future
(Gappa, 2000; Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Roueche et al., 1995, 1996a; Townsend, 2000). Gappa
and Leslie concluded, “This alternative, which started out to be a ‘temporary solution,’ has
become a ‘permanent fix’” (1993, p. 3). As part-time faculty use continues and increases, the
academic profession has become “bifurcated into two faculties: the tenured ‘haves’ and the
temporary, part-time ‘have nots’” (Bowen & Schuster; National Education Association [NEA],
as cited in Gappa & Leslie, 1993, p. 2). This bifurcated faculty within the current postsecondary
system has raised many issues, questions, and debates on the use of part-time faculty.
Description of Problem
There is a strong belief that a bifurcated faculty and the increasing use of postsecondary
part-time faculty decreases the quality of the institution (Balch, 1999; Banachowski, 1996a,
1996b; Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Lee, 1997; Leslie, 1998c; Roueche et al., 1995; Samuel, 1989;
Thompson, 1995). Nonetheless, given the fiscal constraints and growing demand for post-
secondary education, this usage will only increase in the future. This study addressed the use of
part-time faculty in Florida’s community colleges focusing on three institutions in the state.
In their 1993 book, The Invisible Faculty, Gappa and Leslie conducted an in-depth study
of part-time faculty at various types of postsecondary institutions across the country. From their
work, they determined many “myths” and “realities” of part-time faculty and provided
1

ecommendations to improve the use of adjuncts. Gappa and Leslie studied all types of
postsecondary institutions including community colleges; however, Leslie (1998b) believed that
to better understand the role and needs of part-time faculty there should be studies that
disaggregate information by type of institution and field of study.
In their book, Strangers in Their Own Land, Roueche, Roueche, and Milliron (1995)
investigated community colleges affiliated with the American Association of Community
Colleges (AACC). Their comprehensive survey study provided information on the policies and
practices pertaining to part-time faculty and created a profile of part-time faculty based on the
perspective of the administrator. Although the study provided excellent information from an
institutional/administrative perspective, the study did not directly survey or interview part-time
faculty leaving a large gap for further research.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to explore the use of part-time faculty at three Florida
community colleges using a case study design with “thick description” (Geertz, 1973, p. 10), a
detailed description of the phenomenon being studied. An in-depth analysis helped to describe
who serves as part-time faculty and illuminate the reasons they teach as adjuncts. In addition,
the researcher analyzed the policies in use for part-time faculty at selected community colleges
in Florida and determined how adjunct faculty are affected by these policies. Finally, within the
context of the community college, the study analyzed the job satisfaction of the adjuncts as it
pertains to job satisfaction theory and how their perceptions and experiences differed.
In this study, the following research questions were addressed:
1. What are the demographic characteristics and academic backgrounds of the part-time
faculty participants of the study in the three community colleges studied?
2. What are the reasons for teaching part-time of the faculty participants in the three
community colleges studied?
3. What are the job satisfactions and dissatisfactions of the part-time faculty participants
in the three community colleges studied?
4. Are there differences in the perceptions or experiences of the community college
part-time faculty studied?
5. What are the institutional influences and policies affecting the use of part-time faculty
at the community colleges studied?
2

Part-Time Faculty Defined
There are many definitions for part-time faculty. California community colleges defined
part-time faculty as those who teach not more than 60% of a full-time load; Texas Community
Colleges defined part-time faculty as those faculty who teach no more than 50% of a full-time
load (Roueche et al., 1995). The American Association of Community Colleges (AACC)
identified part-time faculty as those who teach nine or fewer credit hours (Roueche et al.). Biles
and Tuckman defined part-time faculty as “those who work less than a full-time load as defined
by their employing institution (1986, p.1). Gappa and Leslie (1993) defined part-time faculty as
“those individuals who are temporary, nontenure-track faculty employed less than full-time” (p.
3).
For the purpose of this study, Roueche et al.’s (1995) definition of part-time faculty is
used. Part-time faculty are defined as “those whose employing institutions recognize them
legally as less than full-time—that is, part-time faculty are those so recognized by their
employing institutions” (p. 25). Doctoral students included in this definition are those employed
as part-time faculty members and not graduate teaching assistants. Also, many institutions and
individuals refer to part-time faculty as adjuncts; these terms will be interchangeable in this
study.
Graduate assistants, who may serve as research assistants (RA’s) as well as teaching
assistants (TA’s), are usually found at four-year institutions, especially research universities.
Although there were 200,000 graduate assistants nationwide in 1993 in comparison to the
184,000 part-time faculty (American Association of University Professors, 1998), the use of
teaching assistants in community colleges is fairly limited (Lee, 1997). Therefore, they are not a
part of this study unless they were teaching at a community college in addition to teaching as a
TA.
One of the most prominent areas in which part-time faculty are used is in undergraduate
education or lower-division courses (i.e. remedial, English composition, and basic math and
algebra courses) and technical or specialized training courses (e.g. LPN clinicals or police
training courses). Since community colleges offer mainly lower-division, general education, and
technical training courses, these colleges are especially prone to the use of adjunct faculty
(Banachowski, 1996a; Dickinson, 1997).
3

Florida’s Community College System (FLCCS)
Florida has a large community college system consisting of 28 institutions enrolling a
total of 211,780 full-time equivalent (FTE) students in 2001-2002 (Division of Community
Colleges, 2003a).
While governed by local boards of trustees, the colleges are coordinated under the
jurisdiction of the Florida Board of Education, and until January 2003, the State Board of
Education (otherwise known as the Florida Cabinet). Administratively, the Chancellor of
Community Colleges is the chief executive officer of the system, reporting to the
Secretary of the Florida Board of Education who serves as the chief executive officer of
Florida’s K-20 Education System.
Policy of Florida’s Community College System generates from activities of the Florida
Board of Education (FLBOE) and is authorized by the Florida legislature. The FLBOE
meets monthly to discuss policy and consider and approve system decision items.
(Division of Community Colleges, 2003c)
Each institution has a Board of Trustees that determines institutional policy. Main and
branch campuses and teaching sites of all 28 institutions are used to provide general lower
division, vocational, and adult continuing education.
History of FLCCS. A brief history of the Florida Community College System is given
below. The FLCCS began in 1933 with the establishment of Palm Beach Jr. College as a two-
year public institution where it was the sole public two-year college in Florida until 1947 when
St. Petersburg Jr. College was established. State and local support was established with the
enactment of the Florida Minimum Foundation Program in 1947. This led to the establishment
of Pensacola Jr. College in 1947, and Chipola Jr. College changed from private to public.
The Community College System was established in 1955 by the Florida Legislature and
published a report, “The Community Junior College in Florida’s Future,” in 1957. This report
provided a Master plan and needed legal changes that laid the foundation for the FLCCS and
created a system that would provide postsecondary education that was in commuter distance for
99% of Florida’s population.
In 1957, the Division of Community Colleges was authorized and six new community
colleges were established. Throughout the 60s and into the early 70s, the remainder of the 28
Florida community colleges were established (See Appendix A for the 28 colleges and years
established). Also, there were 12 district Black Colleges that merged with the system in the mid
1960s (See Appendix B).
4

In 1979, the State Community College Coordinating Board was established and was
replaced by the State Board of Community Colleges (SBCC) in 1983. In 2001, after a repeal of
the statute creating the State Board of Community Colleges, FLCCS went under the control of
the Florida Board of Education (FBOE).
The Master Plan has been adapted over the last 20 years incorporating the inclusion of
distance education and technology. Florida Statutes states the following: “The community
college’s mission reflects a commitment to be responsive to local educational needs and
challenges. In achieving this mission, the colleges strive to maintain sufficient local authority
and flexibility while preserving appropriate legal accountability to the state” (Chapter 240,
Section 301).
General Facts about FLCCS. In the United States, Florida’s community college system
ranks third for producing A.A. degrees. Eight of the 28 institutions rank in the top 20: Miami-
Dade Community College—1st; Valencia Community College—2nd; Broward Community
College—6th; Florida Community College at Jacksonville—8 th ; St. Petersburg College—9th;
Santa Fe Community College—10th; Hillsborough Community College—14 th ; Palm Beach
Community College—17 th (Borden & Brown, 2003).
In addition, the system ranks fourth nationally in enrollment. Total enrollment for the
system in 2001-2002 was 887,835 with 688,163 credit seeking and 199,672 non-credit seeking
students (Division of Community Colleges, 2003a). The system profile includes 28 colleges with
52 campuses and 167 sites. The student population includes 37% minorities, and the Fall 2002
credit-seeking students consisted of 61% female and 39% male with 33% enrolled as full-time
students. The average age system-wide of the students was 27 years (Division of Community
Colleges, 2003b).
As with other community college systems, Florida utilizes part-time faculty in all levels
of general, vocational, and adult continuing education. Information in Table 1 was taken from
the 1999 survey findings of the FLCCS (S. Fleischman, e-mail communication, October 8,
1999). Although the SBCC maintains a System Data Base, the survey findings are self-reported
by the colleges, and the survey has not been conducted since 1999. Table 2 gives a breakdown
of the part-time faculty by gender and race. See Appendix C for more information on the Florida
Community College System.
5

Table 1: Credit and Non-Credit Hours Delivered by FLCCS
6
Part-Time Faculty Full-Time Faculty
Number for Fall 1998 11,256 (68.6%) 5,152 (31.4%)
Percent of credit hours delivered 35% 65%
Percent of non-credit hours delivered 63% 37%
Table 2: Number of Faculty in the FLCCS by Gender and Race
(The Fact Book, 2003)
Male Total White Black Hispanic Other
Full-time Faculty 2,408 1,951 196 179 82
Part-time Faculty 8,887 6,831 636 1,085 335
System-Wide 11,295 8,782 832 1,264 417
Female Total White Black Hispanic Other
Full-time Faculty 2,536 2,036 247 190 63
Part-time Faculty 8,190 6,110 837 910 333
System-Wide 10,726 8,146 1,084 1,100 396
Total 22,021 16,928 1,916 2,364 813
Significance of the Study
Roueche et al. (1995) discussed the changing organizational concept of staffing. With
the changing work force and increasing costs, “ there is evidence that jobs as we know them are
changing, that they are social artifacts, going the way of the dinosaur” (p. 19). Bridges (1994)
stated, “Today’s organization is rapidly being transformed from a structure built out of jobs into
a field of work needing to be done” (p. 64). He further discussed the impact of part-timers on
future organizational structure:
Tomorrow’s organization certainly must turn a significant part of its work over to
a contingent work force that can grow and shrink and reshape itself as its situation
demands. But note that even the most creative work design begs the question of
how unready most organizations are to manage this work force of temps, parttimers,
consultants, and contract workers effectively (Bridges, 1994, p. 64).
Historically, community colleges have been the institutions that claim to respond quickly
and effectively to the needs of the changing environments in their service areas. As these

institutions age, they have become more prone to perpetuate the status quo (Roueche et al.,
1995). Additionally, the “permanent fix” of using part-time faculty is here to stay (Gappa &
Leslie, 1993; Roueche et al., 1995). With part-time faculty at community colleges passing the
65% level, it is imperative for community colleges to know who these individuals are, why they
teach part-time, and how their status as “invisible faculty” can improve. Furthermore, having a
better understanding of the demographics, characteristics, and reasons for teaching of part-time
faculty will provide better systems for administrators and human resource officers to find and
hire the most qualified individuals for part-time positions.
The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) has provided information on full-
and part-time faculty through the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF) (National
Center for Education Statistics, 1997a). Many of the demographic characteristics can be
determined through the data gathered in the NSOPF surveys; however, a survey response makes
it difficult to obtain information on how individuals feel about being part-time faculty, what type
of experiences they have, or why they choose to work part-time. Case studies with focus groups
and in-depth interviews provided an opportunity to uncover such data.
Through the use of qualitative research, this research study sought to provide a better
understanding of part-time faculty within community colleges, most notably the Florida
institutions studied. The study expanded on Gappa and Leslie’s 1993 research by focusing on
community colleges and analyzing information within specific fields of study. It also expanded
on Roueche et al.’s (1995) study by directly interviewing part-time faculty as well as
administrators within the community college environment. Furthermore, the findings may
contribute to improved practices with regard to the use of part-time faculty in Florida community
colleges. The study also explored, through the eyes of part-time faculty, whether current part-
time faculty policies are effective and how these policies can be improved.
Definitions
The following are definitions used in the text:
1. Confirmability: The qualitative component of trustworthiness that addresses the
subjectivity of the researcher, commonly referred to as objectivity in quantitative research
2. Credibility: The ability to demonstrate that the inquiry was conducted in such a manner
as to ensure that the subject was accurately identified and described; it is referred to as internal
validity in quantitative research
7

3. Dependability: The ability of the study to show evidence that the findings would be
repeated if replicated with the same or similar subjects and context; in qualitative research, it is
referred to as reliability and is a precondition of validity.
4. Focus Group: A group interview of 8-10 individuals utilizing a guided questionnaire that
focuses on particular issues
5. Full-Time Employee: Individual who works full-time as designated by the institution
and receives full benefits
6. Going Native: Becoming so engrossed in the setting and with the study subjects that the
researcher loses sight of her role and purpose in the study
7. Half-Time: Individuals who are contracted by their institution to work one-half of the
full-time load for which they receive one-half or partial benefits
8. Job Satisfaction: How people feel about their jobs and different aspects of their jobs
(Spector, 1997, p. 2)
9. Member Checking: Allows members of the stake holding groups to test categories,
interpretations, and conclusions
10. Motivation: Reasons given by adjunct faculty for teaching part-time
11. National Survey of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF): Survey conducted by the NCES
every five years that collects quantitative data on various aspects of faculty in postsecondary
institutions
12. Naturalistic Paradigm (also called Constructivist): A researcher does not attempt to
manipulate the setting but works in the naturally occurring environment without a predetermined
direction for the research.
13. Paradigm: An example or model
14. Part-time faculty: Those whose employing institutions recognize them legally as less
than full-time—that is, part-time faculty are those so recognized by their employing institutions
(Roueche et al., 1995, p. 25)
15. Phenomenological Paradigm: The perspective that is concerned with human behavior
from the actor’s own frame of reference; examining how the world is experienced from the
subject’s perspective
16. Transferability: The ability to replicate the study in other contexts or with other subjects;
referred to as external validity in quantitative research
8

17. Triangulation: In order to establish internal validity, the researcher works to substantiate
an interpretation or to clarify its different meanings by bringing more than one source of data to
bear on a single point. Use of triangulation allows for data from various sources to be used for
corroboration, elaboration, or illumination of the research questions.
9

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
Use of part-time faculty in colleges and universities has been growing steadily over the
years (Clery, 1998; Kirshstein, Matheson, Jing & Zimbler, 1997; National Center for
Educational Statistics, 1997; Roueche, et al., 1995; Townsend, 2000). Although there is a
proliferation of opinions on part-time faculty, the empirical research to support many of these
beliefs is limited.
From a historical perspective, use of part-time faculty, especially within the community
colleges, has been prevalent for many years. Eells (1931) reported a large usage of part-time
faculty as early as the 1920s, with approximately one-half of the instructors in Texas community
colleges and more than 91% in eight California community colleges serving part-time. Heinberg
(1966) reported approximately 38% of faculty in community colleges were teaching part-time in
1966. By the 1980s, Cohen and Brawer (1989) and Palmer (1987) reported the number of part-
time faculty in community colleges to be between 50% and 60%. According to Hawkins (1993),
community colleges increased part-time hiring from 40% in 1987-1989 to 60% in 1990 and
1992. Similarly, Cohen and Brawer stated that between 1973 and 1984 full-time faculty
increased 22% while part-time faculty increased by 168%. Also, Roueche et al. (1995)
maintained the number of full-time faculty have been increasing at a relatively stable rate of
approximately 15% per year.
Prior to 1980, the research on part-time faculty is scarce. Tuckman (1978) conducted the
most preeminent early study of part-time employment practices of postsecondary institutions.
The taxonomy he developed is discussed at length in this chapter, and his research is used as the
basis of more recent research. The 1980s and 1990s produced much more literature on part-time
faculty covering areas including the following: characteristics of part-time faculty; recruitment,
10

orientation, mentoring and professional development of part-time faculty; reasons individuals
choose to teach part-time; quality of instruction; working conditions and needs; and suggestions
and recommendations to improve the instruction as well as the status of part-time faculty.
One area of interest is how part-time faculty are perceived by the world of academe.
Banachowski (1996a, 1996b) noted that much of the literature has negative connotations, being
referred to by many names: “the academic underclass” (Benjet & Loweth, 1989), “a corps of
unregulated personnel” (McGuire, 1993), “hopeful full-timers” (Tuckman, 1978), “anchorless
street-corner men” (Franklin, Laurence, & Denham, 1988), “M.I.A.’s” (Heinzelman, 1986), and
“invisible and expendable” (Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Wallace, 1984). Within the particular arena
of community colleges, McGuire (1993) described part-time faculty as a “necessary evil,”
“cheap fix,” “dangerous addiction,” and an “exploitation of the worse kind” (p. 2). Interestingly,
Banachowski noted that little empirical data is available to substantiate these negative
perceptions of part-time faculty.
This chapter reviews the research and literature on part-time faculty in all postsecondary
institutions with a focus on community colleges. The following areas pertaining to part-time
faculty are discussed: the use of part-time faculty from a national perspective; taxonomies; age,
ethnicity, gender, marital status, and educational level; recruitment and hiring, socialization and
integration, compensation and benefits, job security, and evaluation; reasons for teaching part-
time; and the advantages and disadvantages of using adjunct instructors.
National Perspective
In the 1998 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF), there were 562,000 full-
time faculty and 417,000 part-time faculty, or 57% to 43% respectively. This is approximately
the same percentage of part-time faculty as in the 1993 NSOPF, which may indicate that the use
of part-time faculty is leveling off (Berger, Kirshstein, Zhang, & Carter, 2002). According to the
1998 NSOPF, two year institutions had 102,000 full-time faculty and 170,000 part-time faculty
indicating a greater use of part-time (62%) than full-time faculty.
According to Lombardi’s (1992) research, 38.5% of instructors in the 698 junior colleges
studied were part-time in 1962. This number increased to 40% in 1971 and 43% in 1974. The
American Association of Community Colleges (AACC) reported an increase from 41% part-time
faculty in 1973 to 65% in 1991 with an increase in the number of part-time faculty members of
205.4% (Lee, 1997). Some institutions exceeded these numbers significantly. According to
11

Williamson & Mulholland (1993), 75% of Valencia Community College’s Osceola campus’
faculty were adjuncts, and Iadevaia (1991) reported that 80% of Pima Community College
faculty were part-time.
Based on Lee’s report (1997), community colleges averaged 65% of faculty teaching
part-time, with very few TAs. There were 177,844 part-time faculty compared to 96,698 full-
time faculty in community colleges (64.8% versus 35.2%). This compared with the 1991 IPEDS
Staff Survey where 126,969 part-time faculty taught in community colleges. This showed an
increase of 40% (Lee, 1993, p.3). According to the 1998 NSOPF, there were 170,000 part-time
faculty and 102,000 full-time faculty in two-year institutions (62% and 38% respectively).
Florida community colleges’ numbers are similar to the national level. In a 1999 survey
of the Florida Community College System conducted by the State Board of Community
Colleges, 68.6% of the faculty were ranked as part-time, delivering 35% of the credit hours and
63% of the non-credit hours of instruction (Fleischman, e-mail communication, October 8,
1999).
Taxonomies
With the increasing use of part-time faculty, several studies have attempted to define and
categorize them. These studies have focused on various aspects and characteristics of part-
timers.
Tuckman’s Taxonomy
Tuckman (1978) interviewed 3,763 part-time instructors and created a taxonomy of
seven, mutually exclusive categories for part-timers:
1. Semiretireds (2.8% of the total sample) were former full-time academics/professionals
who have reduced their hours and are no longer concerned about the future of their
jobs/careers.
2. Graduate students (21.2%) were usually not employed at the institution where they were
pursuing their degree and worked to augment income and gain experience.
3. Hopeful full-timers (16.6%) were those pursuing full-time academic positions but could
not find them.
4. Full-mooners (27.6%) held primary jobs of at least thirty-five hours outside of academe.
5. Homeworkers (6.4%) worked part-time due to outside family commitments such as
children or other relatives.
12

6. Part-mooners (13.6%) held part-time teaching positions while working less than thirty-
five hours a week elsewhere.
7. Part-unknowners (11.8%) were those whose reasons for working part-time were
unknown, transitory or highly subjective (Tuckman, 1978).
Biles and Tuckman’s Taxonomy
Biles and Tuckman (1986) utilized another typology that classified part-timers by their
employment situation. The four classifications included the following:
1. Moonlighters were employed in another job but teach one course. They had no fringe
benefits, tenure, sabbatical, advisees, committee work, or departmental vote.
2. Twilighters were not employed outside the institution, but the institution chose not to
employ them full-time. They had no departmental vote but received prorated fringe
benefits and longer contracts.
3. Sunlighters were like full-time faculty in every aspect except the amount they work. They
received prorated benefits, committee assignments, advisees, and tenure and sabbatical
eligibility. Their probation period was a maximum of seventeen semesters, and they had
an opportunity to negotiate full-time status.
4. Person on occasional part-time leave were full-time faculty who may leave the
institution or teach part-time for a short period of time. They may return to full-time
status or continue in the part-time phase. This category included but is not limited to
women who have small children. (p. 11-13)
Gappa and Leslie’s Taxonomy
Based on their 1993 study, Gappa and Leslie created four categories that encompassed
and further defined Tuckman’s taxonomy:
1. Career enders included those in Tuckman’s semiretired category as well as those who
were already retired, and those moving to preretired or retired status. Many of these
individuals were in well-established careers.
2. Specialists, experts, and professionals had a primary career elsewhere, usually full-time.
These individuals worked part-time for the love of teaching and usually did not rely on
the income.
3. Aspiring academics were those who aspired to be “fully participating, recognized and
rewarded members of the faculty with a status at least similar to that currently associated
13

with the tenure-track or tenured faculty” (p. 48). Included in Gappa and Leslie’s aspiring
academics were part-time faculty who possessed a terminal degree and want full-time
teaching careers and ABD doctoral students (students who had completed all the doctoral
requirements except the dissertation).
Also in this group, Gappa and Leslie distinguished between true part-time faculty and
“full-time” part-timers who have combined several part-time appointments at several
institutions, sometimes teaching heavier loads than full-time faculty. This group was
often referred to as “freeway fliers” (p. 48).
4. Freelancers were a compilation of Tuckman’s part-unknowners, part-mooners, and
homeworkers. Part-time faculty in this category were in higher education by choice and
did not aspire to become academics.
Characteristics of Part-time Faculty
Beyond taxonomies, the literature on adjunct faculty discussed various characteristics.
These characteristics influenced the development of the previously discussed taxonomies and
include age, ethnicity, gender, marital status, and educational level.
Age
There were several factors concerning age discussed by Gappa and Leslie (1993). They
noted that part-time faculty tend to be younger than full-time faculty. Many of the younger
individuals were still in academic or professional training. Others had completed their training
and were searching for full-time work.
The mean age of part-time faculty in the 1993 NSOPF study was 45.8 years as compared
to 48.0 years for full-time faculty (Leslie, 1998c). Furthermore in the 1993 NSOPF, 49% of the
faculty fell into the younger age brackets than full-time faculty with 15% under 35 and 34% in
the 35-44 age bracket. Thirty percent were 45-54 years old, and only 7% were 65 or older
(Conley, Leslie, & Zimbler, 2002).
Gender
According to the 1988 NSOPF survey, 57.9% of part-time faculty were men while 42.1%
were women. In comparison, 73% of full-time faculty were men, and 27% were women
(National Center for Education Statistics, 1990). By 1993, part-time faculty consisted of 55%
men and 45% women, while full-time faculty were 67% male and 33% female. In the 1998
NSOPF, men held 62% of the full-time positions and 38% of the part-time positions, while
14

women held 51% of full-time faculty positions and 49% of part-time positions (Berger et al.,
2002).
Women were disproportionately represented in the part-time faculty (Burns, 1992; Gappa
& Leslie, 1993). This also tied in with the conclusion that the part-time academic workforce is
more female than the full-time and may indicate lack of flexibility of the traditional tenure
system that may conflict with women’s prime childbearing years (Gappa & Leslie, p.24). In
their study of gender and career trajectory of part-time faculty, Lundy & Warme (1990)
concluded that significantly higher percentage of women than men believed that their gender
affected their career decisions and opportunities because of several factors such as discontinuity
in service and training.
Gappa and Leslie (1993) found other gender-related issues in their interviews with part-
time faculty. One such issue was that women seemed to rely more on the income received from
part-time teaching than men. Men tended to hold a full-time professional position as well as
part-time faculty position.
Conley et al. (2002) noted that academic disciplines were also dominated by gender in
both part-time and full-time faculty positions. According to the 1998 NSOPF, women held 65%
of the part-time positions in the fine arts, while holding only 13% of the part-time positions in
Engineering. Overall, women held only 9% of the engineering positions (Berger et al., 2002).
Ethnicity
Based on the 1988 NSOPF, minorities made up only 9.2% of part-time faculty (National
Center for Education Statistics, 1990). In 1993, 12% of part-time faculty and 13% of full-time
faculty were minorities (Conley et al., 2002), which indicates a slight increase. It also
emphasizes the dominance of white, non-Hispanic instructors in both 4- and 2-year institutions.
In their study, Gappa and Leslie (1993) found a similar lack of diversity among their
interviewees. “While we had speculated that part-time faculty employment would offer
institutions an excellent opportunity to hire teachers from racial and ethnic minorities,
considerations of affirmative action or diversity did not appear to play an important role in the
recruitment and employment of minority candidates at most of the institutions we visited” (p.
22). Gappa and Leslie concluded, “Institutions are missing out on an opportunity to enrich their
programs with diverse perspectives” (p. 24) by not hiring minority part-time faculty.
15

Marital Status
Based on the 1988 NSOPF data, the number of married men and women part-time faculty
were nearly equal, 78% and 71%, respectively (National Center for Education Statistics, 1990).
This was a contrast to the full-time faculty where 83% of the men and 63% of the women are
married. The marital status of part-time faculty did not vary by institution and was a strong
factor in choosing part-time employment (Gappa & Leslie, 1993, p. 26). In the 1993 NSOPF,
the difference between part-time and full-time married was 75% and 77%, respectively (Conley,
et al., 2002).
Furthermore, Gappa and Leslie reached an interesting conclusion. “Regardless of
gender, we were struck by the degree to which people of talent, energy, commitment, and
obvious qualification had been relegated to marginal positions in academic life by their marital
and familial status” (1993, p. 30).
Gappa and Leslie also concluded that geographic immobility was closely related to
marital and familial status. Geographic immobility was a strong factor in pursuing part-time
faculty positions. Furthermore, Gappa and Leslie found that, outside of full-time graduate
students, few part-timers were willing to relocate.
Educational Level and Rank
There were some differences in full-time and part-time faculty in respect to level of
education. In all institutions, part-time faculty were less likely to hold doctoral degrees than full-
time, 27% to 67% respectively. Furthermore, 54% of part-time faculty held a Master’s degree in
comparison to 28% of full-time faculty. Additionally, only 11% of part-time faculty at two-year
institutions reported holding a doctorate, and 31% reported having a Bachelor’s or lower degree
(Berger et al., 2002).
In the 1998 NSOPF, 18% of part-time faculty held the rank of full, associate or assistant
professor at all the institutions, while 77% of full-time faculty held these ranks. Furthermore,
73% of part-time faculty held position of instructor/lecturer at two-year institutions compared to
39% of full-time faculty (Berger et al., 2002).
Part-Time Faculty Issues
In a study of part-time faculty, Sheeks (1998) concluded that there was a lack of
consistency in the recruitment, utilization, integration, and socialization of part-time faculty.
Roueche, et al. (1995) discussed these issues as ones that administrators found important when
16

discussing part-time faculty. The following section will examine the literature on recruitment
and hiring, socialization and integration, compensation and benefits, job security, and evaluation
of part-time faculty.
Recruitment and Hiring
Part-time faculty are recruited from several sources. In the early days of community
colleges, most part-time faculty were secondary school instructors and some university
professors. By the mid 1970s, part-time faculty included many retired individuals and graduate
students (Cohen & Brawer, 1989).
There are many issues to consider when recruiting and hiring adjunct faculty. Adjuncts
are often treated as transient or temporary workers with selection often resulting in last minute,
one-semester hirings by the institutions (Finucane & Algren, 1997; Gappa & Leslie, 1993).
Often, recruitment efforts for part-time faculty are by word of mouth or only advertised locally,
possibly regionally (Gappa, 2000). Furthermore, many institutions do not have a set hiring
policy or contract. Hiring processes often lack any set procedures, and Gappa noted that
“[b]ottom-fishing for the least expensive and most vulnerable (but not necessarily best qualified)
can occur when department chairs are not accountable for their hiring practices” (p. 80).
Also, appointments are often given late and are on a term-by-term basis (Gappa, 2000).
This is emphasized by Rhodes’ (1996) study of contracts for part-time faculty. Of 183 contracts
analyzed, the appointment and release of part-time faculty was not specified in 140.
There are other problems encountered by institutions when hiring part-time faculty. In
some states, union contracts allow last minute bumps by full-time faculty, and this uncertainty of
classes makes qualified adjuncts hard to find and keep. Also, students are often hesitant to
register for classes marked as “staff” or “TBA” because they feel they are not getting “real”
teachers. It is often difficult to find adjuncts to teach at times full-time faculty do not want, such
as early morning or weekend classes. Finally, loss of adjuncts to last minute reasons, such as
illness, death, or no-shows, makes recruitment especially difficult (Styne, 1997).
The actual hiring process is another issue in recruitment. The American Association of
University Professors (1998) stated that the full-time faculty hiring process was much more
stringent than part-time faculty. Growing use of long-term part-time faculty may require a more
efficient hiring process of adjuncts, making it as important as the hiring of full-time instructors
(Balch, 1999; Roueche et al., 1995; Todd, 1996).
17

Socialization and Integration
Van Maanen (1976) and Van Maanen and Schein (1979) defined socialization as the
progression of learning the culture, norms, and expectations of the workplace. Finucane and
Algren (1997) discussed socialization and integration, how it is critical to organizations, and how
it has been linked to variables such as satisfaction, feelings of self-worth, effective performance,
productivity, role clarity and performance, and commitment. Most institutions do a poor job of
integrating part-time faculty into the institutional culture with few administrations aggressively
or systematically directing integration efforts (American Association of University Professors,
1998; Balch, 1999; Parsons, 1998; Roueche et al., 1995, 1996a, 1996b). Furthermore, lack of
integration often leads to feelings of exclusion and isolation, decreasing job satisfaction (Balch,
1999; Finucane & Algren, 1997; Rifkin, 1998).
Roueche et al. (1996a, 1996b) found that integration of part-time faculty into community
colleges was possible, and several institutions had done it quite successfully. They believed that
“part-time faculty are a vital resource that can and should be integrated into the community of
learners that community colleges seek to form” (Roueche, 1996a, p. 45).
There are two ways to socialize or integrate adjunct faculty, through formal and informal
methods (Finucane & Algren, 1997). Examples of formal integration are orientation for new
adjuncts where institutional policies and procedures are explained, documents such as
handbooks, rules, benefit booklets, and employee services information that provide much needed
information, mentoring programs for new instructors, and professional development
opportunities (Balch, 1999; Finucane & Algren, 1997). Informal socialization is on the job
learning (Jones, 1986) and often comes from experiences and interactions (Jablin, 1987).
German (1996) believed that “the challenge of the future is to integrate part-time faculty,
tapping their talents and energies, while providing them with collegial support and positive
relationships to the institutions” (p. 239). To improve integration, it is important to understand
that part-time faculty’s loyalty is to the department first then to the institution, and that is why
the departments should make efforts to regularly integrate adjuncts with full-time faculty (Balch,
1999; Gappa & Leslie, 1993).
Thompson stated, “the most successful adjunct development programs are those that have
the commitment and participation of the college administration and full and part-time faculty to
help integrate adjuncts into the mainstream of the college” (1995, p. 19-20). This can be done in
18

a variety of ways. Three areas addressed in the literature are participation in the academic
decision-making processes, mentoring programs, and professional development opportunities.
Academic Decision-Making. Part-time faculty often feel as if they are second-class
citizens in the academic community (Kelly, 1991). They are usually excluded from the decision-
making arena. Most faculty do not attend faculty meetings at the departmental or institutional
level or serve on committees, but many would like to be included (Kelly, 1991; Pollington,
1991). Kelly’s study found that some part-time faculty were invited to faculty meetings, but
most of those that were invited could not attend because of scheduling conflicts. She also found
that part-timers who attended division meetings felt more involved in the campus community. In
addition, Rifkin (1998) found that part-timers had little autonomy within institutions because
they had no decision-making power.
Mentoring. Mentors for part-time faculty can be full-time faculty, other part-time
faculty, administrators, or adjunct coordinators (Balch, 1999; Styne, 1997). Adjunct
coordinators are individuals who are responsible for the management of adjuncts. This includes
ordering textbooks for classes, providing clerical support, ensuring adjuncts have keys and
mailboxes, and providing support for adjuncts in general. Coordinators may be full- or part-time
faculty or administration, and they may be compensated or coordinate on a volunteer basis
(Balch, 1999; Styne, 1997).
Mentoring programs vary widely in use and format. Usually, full-time faculty (and
occasionally long-term adjuncts) are joined with adjuncts. These mentors may or may not be
compensated (Balch, 1999; Styne, 1997). Williams noted that the most successful programs are
those that give release time to full-time faculty (as cited in Balch, 1999). These experienced
faculty visit part-time faculty’s classrooms, provide feedback, answer questions, and give
encouragement.
One study showed that adjuncts believed there were open lines of communication, but
they did not know the right questions to ask (Finucane & Algren, 1997). Mentoring programs
give the adjunct the opportunity to ask questions and offer experienced individuals to provide
answers (Balch, 1999).
Finucane & Algren (1997) found that the socialization process of full- and part-time
faculty does not promote mentoring. Their study found that the adjuncts they interviewed did
not get the support they felt they needed to do an adequate job.
19

Professional Development. Marits (1996) discussed the benefits to colleges that provide
professional development opportunities to adjuncts. First, it contributes to better integration of
part-time faculty into institutional goals. Secondly, it is an excellent recruiting tool to attract
outstanding adjuncts. Finally, professional development provides an organized plan for
assessing faculty growth and development (Marits, 1996). Furthermore, Balch (1999) noted that
all activities involving part-time faculty help to improve instructional abilities. Interestingly,
Rhodes’ (1996) study of part-time faculty contracts showed that only 10 of 183 reviewed made
any provisions for professional development.
Finucane and Algren’s (1997) study found that part-time faculty believed that the lack of
professional development leads to decreased quality of classroom instruction and could possibly
affect individual adjunct’s career development. Kelly (1991) found that part-time faculty were
very interested in professional development, especially concerning areas closely tied to teaching.
Instructional topics of greatest interest to part-time faculty included motivational techniques for
the classroom, teaching underprepared and adult students, and increasing student retention (p.
11). Furthermore, Pollington (1991) found that part-time faculty wanted to be involved in areas
of professional development as well as provided with opportunities to conduct research.
Unfortunately, part-time faculty were much less likely than full-time faculty to receive any form
of professional development (American Association of University Professors, 1998).
Compensation and Benefits
Salary. At the institution studied, Weglarz (1998) found that 90% of part-time faculty
ranked salary as the first or second choice of importance. Furthermore, compensation varies
widely among institutions, and it is far below the full-time faculty equivalent. Some institutions
pay a flat fee per course; other institutions have a salary range based on experience (Balch, 1999;
Gappa, 2000). Part-time faculty are confronted with low and static pay scales (Banachowski,
1996a, 1996b; Gappa, 2000; Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Kelly, 1991; Lankard, 1993; Pollington,
1991, 1992; Twigg, 1989; Wyles, 1998) and a median pay of $1,500 for a three-credit course
(Avakian, 1995; Wyles, 1998). Grenzke (1998) found that approximately one-half of adjunct
faculty earn $2,500 per course. According to the American Association of University Professors
(1998), salaries can range from $1,000 to $3,000 per course; this is a fraction of the full-time
pro-rata (American Association of University Professors, 1998; Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Kelly,
1991; Pollington, 1991; Roueche et al., 1995). Roueche et al.’s (1995) study of community
20

colleges indicated a mean salary of $1,197 with a range of $424 to $3,852 per course. Conley et
al. (2002) found that the average basic salary for part-time faculty was $10,200, which
constituted only about 30% of their income, and the other 70% came from outside sources.
Furthermore, the discrepancy between the salary of full-time and part-time faculty is a
concern. Roueche et al. (1995) found that the average expense for a community college district
for 10 three-hour courses for a new, entry-level faculty member was $38,225; the same district
could use part-time faculty to teach those 10 classes and save approximately $21,400 (p. 35). In
California, hourly rates for part-timers may be from 1/3 to 1/2 of full-time faculty’s rates.
Thompson (1992a) stated, “Part-timers who calculate their actual hourly wages based on time
spent teaching, preparing, and grading sometimes learn that they are earning less than the
minimum wage” (p. 30).
There may also be disparity within states. Spinetta (1990) found a variation of as much
as 350% in compensation level of part-time faculty within the 107 California community
colleges. As Pollington (1991) found, part-time faculty would like to be paid fairly for the work
they do.
Benefits. The 1993 NSOPF found that 55% of part-time faculty were satisfied overall
with their pay, but only 43% were satisfied with their benefits. Lack of benefits is also a concern
for adjunct faculty (Kelly, 1991; Mize, 1998; Pollington, 1991). There are limited, if any,
benefits such as health insurance and retirement (American Association of University Professors,
1998; Balch, 1999; Banachowski, 1996a, 1996b Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Lankard, 1993;
Pollington, 1991, 1992; Roueche et al., 1995). Some institutions provide medical benefits if the
instructor works at least 50% or more, and, if provided at all, retirement benefits vary widely
among institutions. Balch (1999) pointed out that offering benefits can be very costly and
institutions may need to look at other options. With part-timers much less likely to receive any
fringe benefits, Balch (1999) anticipated that there may be a significant social implication in the
future with many of these individuals relying on the government for emergencies and retirement.
Pollington (1991) found that part-time faculty were not eligible for other benefits as well.
Tuition waivers are often a benefit for full-time faculty and staff but are not given to part-timers
even when they teach close to a full-load and have been an employee for several years. She also
noted that part-time faculty do not receive the same treatment as full-time faculty in respect to
library privileges, parking permits, newsletters, and names published in the class schedule.
21

Collective Bargaining. Finally, Leslie, Kellams, & Gunne found that 41% of public
institutions and 28 % of private institutions with collective bargaining have grievance procedures
for part-time faculty (1982; Balch, 1999). Conley et al. (2002) found that only 12% of part-time
faculty were union members. Additionally, part-time faculty are limited in their ability to
negotiate salaries and other needs with institutions (Banachowski, 1996a, 1996b; Gappa &
Leslie, 1993; Lankard, 1993). Organization of part-time faculty at postsecondary institutions is
on the rise, and there have been some successful efforts in creating a union for part-time
instructors (Thompson, 1994).
With strong efforts in Boston, Washington, and Chicago, there is currently a nationwide
move to organize part-time faculty. The Coalition of Contingent Academic Labor (COCAL)
held its fourth annual conference in early January 2001. This organization’s purpose is to
organize part-time faculty to improve teaching conditions including salaries, benefits, and other
working conditions (Delaney, 2001).
This effort to organize has been further galvanized by the recent report by the Coalition
on the Academic Workforce (CAW) concerning the large numbers of part-timers in
postsecondary institutions, especially in areas such as history, English, and the humanities
(Townsend, 2000). With the quantitative data to support their cause, many adjuncts are moving
to organize into unions to improve their working conditions.
Job Security
Lack of job security and employment incentives is a major concern when addressing
issues facing part-time faculty (American Association of University Professors, 1998; Balch,
1999; Mize, 1998; Styne, 1997). Gappa stated that 45% of part-time faculty in the 1993 NSOPF
were not satisfied with job security (2000; Conley et al., 2002). In the 1998 NSOPF, 38% were
dissatisfied with job security (Berger et al., 2002). German (1996) stated that 91% of part-time
faculty were unranked (outside the channels for advancement). Furthermore, 19% of part-time
faculty were moonlighters or semi-retired professionals (Finklestein, 1985; Finucane & Algren,
1997). Corley (1988) estimated that 85% of part-time faculty were not eligible for tenure. This
leaves a significant number of individuals without job security (Finucane & Algren, 1997). If
faculty members have long relationships with an institution, it is usually because of the goodwill
of the institution and not the rights of the part-time faculty (Gappa, 2000).
22

In addition, many part-timers face a lack of job security with term-to-term appointments
(Balch, 1999; Curzon-Brown, 1988; Gappa, 2000; Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Mize, 1998; Wyles,
1998). There is a lack of adequate notice of employment and non-renewal with many adjuncts
receiving their assignment the day before the class is to start or losing their classes to full-time
faculty at the last minute (American Association of University Professors, 1998; Kelly, 1991;
Styne, 1997).
Evaluation
In their discussion of part-time faculty, the American Association of University
Professors (1998) noted that adjunct faculty are much less likely than full-time faculty to receive
any type of evaluations. Institutions, however, are beginning to establish policies for formal
evaluation of adjuncts (Parsons, 1998; Styne, 1997). Part of the reason for formal policies being
developed is the demand from “the customers” to know they are receiving quality instruction
(Williams, 1994).
There are several types of evaluations that may be used by institutions. From his case
study of Yavapai College, Williams (1994) analyzed the three forms of evaluation the
institutions incorporated for part-time faculty evaluation: standardized student evaluations,
administrative in-class evaluations, and self-analysis evaluations. The two most common forms
will be discussed.
Student evaluations are the most common form of evaluation. These evaluations are
usually standardized forms filled out on a periodic basis, usually once per term, and for many
part-time faculty, these evaluations are the only form of feedback they receive. In the
assessment of use of student evaluations a Yavapai College, it was determined that students were
very honest in their evaluation of instructors and the courses (Williams, 1994).
Some institutions have administrators or full-time faculty visit classrooms and provide
formal and informal feedback. In a case study of her department, Styne (1997) discussed how
new instructors have experienced instructors visit the classroom in the first and second semester
of teaching. Feedback on ways to improve in the classroom is then provided to the new adjuncts.
This has proven to be successful and much appreciated by new adjuncts.
In their study of community, technical, and junior colleges in a 19-state region, Erwin &
Andrews (1993) found that 88.6% of the institutions had evaluation procedures in place for part-
23

time faculty compared to 97.5% for full-time faculty. Furthermore, 60% of the part-time faculty
evaluated were not satisfied with the evaluation system.
Evaluation plays a significant role in faculty integration into an institution (Behrendt &
Parsons, 1983). “Faculty evaluation should be used as a tool to seek more overlap among
credit/noncredit and full-time/part-time teaching staff members so that …artificial barriers are
removed” (p. 42), and part-time faculty believe they are an integral part of the institution.
Reasons for Teaching Part-time
The literature shows a variety of reasons individuals choose to teach part-time. Often
part-timers who hold full-time jobs teach for the prestige (Pollington, 1991), or they find
teaching an interesting outlet for their lively minds (American Association of University
Professors, 1998; Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Tuckman, 1978). Some teach to keep current with their
professional literature or to bring their professional expertise to the classroom. Others want to
give back to society, make a contribution to education, or help others from similar backgrounds
(American Association of University Professors, 1998; Benjamin, 1998; Gappa & Leslie, 1993).
Another source of part-timers is high school teachers who moonlight as adjunct
instructors for additional compensation or to work with students who are attending school
willingly (Freeland, 1998). Conley et al. (2002) noted that 62% of part-time faculty surveyed in
1992 taught part-time for supplemental income.
Some individuals choose to teach part-time because it provides more flexibility and time
to spend with their families (Mize, 1998; Pollington, 1991; Tuckman, 1978). Many part-time
faculty find that their personal or career goals are incompatible with the traditional tenure-track
career, and teaching as an adjunct provides more flexibility in their career paths in higher
education (American Association of University Professors, 1998; Roueche et al., 1995). Also
according to the 1993 NSOPF, 50% of part-time faculty chose to teach part-time because it was
what they preferred (Conley et al., 2002).
Some find that they are not eligible for full-time positions because they lack a Ph.D.
(Pollington, 1991). Consequently, their desire to be in academia motivates them to teach part-
time (Conley et al., 2002). Also, some teach part-time while finishing their graduate degrees
(Conley et al., 2002).
Finally, there are those who teach simply because they like to teach and are good at it
(American Association of University Professors, 1998; Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Pollington, 1991).
24

Cohen’s study of 149 adjunct faculty found that personal satisfaction and acquiring teaching
experience were the main reasons to teach part-time (1992).
Many part-timers view adjunct teaching as an avenue to full-time academic positions
(Banachowski, 1996a, 1996b; Conley et al., 2002; Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Roueche et al., 1995;
Tuckman, 1978). Conley et al. (2002) found that 47% of faculty surveyed in the 1993 NSOPF
taught part-time because full-time positions were unavailable. In 1998, Berger et al. (2002)
found that 59% were teaching part-time because they could not find a full-time position.
Silvers’ (1990) study of Pima Community College and a survey of adjunct faculty at College of
the Canyons, Valencia, California, found 50% and 62.5%, respectively, of adjunct faculty hoped
to move into full-time positions. Also, many part-timers hope for the “foot in the door” only to
find that they do not have the opportunity to convert their appointments into full-time positions
(Delaney, 2001; Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Wyles, 1998).
Freeland (1998) believed the part-time faculties at community colleges are a natural
resource for future full-time faculty. She discussed the anticipated shortfall in qualified
community college instructors in the next decade, especially due to retirement. This is due to the
fact that approximately one-half of undergraduates are enrolled in community colleges, and a
significant percentage of those teaching in higher education are teaching at community colleges.
This may provide a great opportunity for part-timers to move into the full-time arena.
Advantages of Using Part-time Faculty
Usage of part-time faculty, especially in community colleges, continues to grow because
of two main advantages to postsecondary institutions. These advantages, the fiscal benefit to the
institution and the expertise of adjunct faculty, will be discussed.
Fiscal Benefit
One of the most common reasons for using part-time faculty is finance (Banachowski,
1996a, 1996b; Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Haeger, 1998; Rifkin, 1998; Styne, 1997). Part-time
faculty are “the economic bargain of the last 20 years” (Freeland, 1998, p.4). With the
increasing fiscal constraints on institutional and departmental budgets, colleges and universities
are seeking alternative methods of funding and cost cutting (Avakian, 1995; Monroe & Denman,
1991; Osborn, 1990; Selvadurai, 1990).
An institution can save a considerable amount of money by hiring part-timers. Use of
part-timers is less costly because the pay scale is usually lower than full-time faculty, often set,
25

and usually stagnant (Banachowski, 1996a, 1996b; Cohen & Brawer, 1989; Gappa & Leslie,
1993; Twigg 1989). According to Twigg (1989), many part-timers did not receive pay raises or
benefits, a significant saving over full-time faculty. Furthermore, Mangan (1991) discussed the
savings in terms of sick leave, pension, and health-care insurance that institutions secure from
use of part-time faculty.
Another benefit of using part-time faculty is flexibility (Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Rhodes,
1996). One of the greatest advantages of flexibility is the ability to adapt to varying enrollment
demands (Lankard, 1993; McGuire, 1993; Osborn, 1990). Utilizing part-time faculty allows
departments to hire, often on very short notice, if there is a greater demand for classes than
expected. Conversely, there is no penalty for not renewing a term-by-term appointment of part-
time faculty (Cohen & Brawer, 1989; Mize, 1998). Use of adjuncts also provides for more
flexibility in meeting institutions’ needs such as flexibility in class scheduling (American
Association of University Professors, 1998). This is a significant issue in community colleges
because there is often a large population of part-time students that affects enrollment.
Also, budgets are often based on formulas that use enrollments from as many as three
years preceding the current academic year (Gappa & Leslie, 1993). These formulas do not
accommodate any fluctuations in enrollments and can lead to significant budget crises in many
departments with surging enrollments. Use of part-time faculty provides the needed flexibility in
these situations.
Budget flexibility is advantageous because it allows full-time faculty lines to be used for
departmental needs such as supplementing operating funds or providing more part-time
instructors (Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Haeger, 1998). The cost-effectiveness of part-time faculty
allows departments to free up resources providing for increased full-time faculty salaries and
support. Also, using adjuncts for introductory classes allows full-time faculty to teach advanced
level courses and work on research projects (American Association of University Professors,
1998; Mize, 1998).
Another benefit is the reduction of departmental budget through attrition of retiring
faculty. These faculty are replaced with lower paid part-timers providing even greater flexibility
for potential future budgetary constraints (Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Haeger, 1998).
Part-time faculty are more willing to teach at odd times and in different locations (Cohen
& Brawer, 1989) providing inexpensive and mobile labor (Clark, 1997), which increases
26

departmental flexibility. Also, community colleges often have branch campuses. Using part-
time faculty allows colleges to offer classes away from the main campus and utilize expertise
from the area where the branch campus is located (Lee, 1997).
Farrell (1992; Balch, 1999) discussed the use of part-time faculty to test and evaluate
new curriculum without burdening the full-time faculty. Institutions can limit their expenses
significantly from this form of curriculum development (Balch, 1999; Roueche et al., 1995).
Expertise
One of the main benefits of part-time faculty is that they provide diverse and specialized
skills, often working full-time within the field of study (Banachowski, 1996a, 1996b; Gappa &
Leslie, 1993; Haeger, 1998; Lee, 1997; Mize, 1998). These instructors provide up-to-date real
world experience and skills (Brewer & Gray, 2000; Cline, 1993; Cohen, 1992; Cohen & Brawer,
1989; Littrell, 1990; Roueche et al., 1995) and provide a venue to infuse a field’s professional
norms and values into the curriculum (Phelan, 1986). Finally, adjunct faculty, especially those
working full-time in professional positions, help the transition of students into the real world
work force and provide valuable contacts (American Association of University Professors, 1998;
Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Roueche et al., 1995).
Often, part-time faculty provide a pool of talented, motivated teachers (McGuire, 1993).
Although some argue that part-timers do not have proper pedagogical skills or understanding of
new teaching methods (Digranes & Digranes, 1995; Kelly, 1990), there are several studies that
discuss the advantages of hiring part-time faculty instructors (Avakian, 1995; Kelly 1990;
Roderer & Weissbecker, 1990; Selvadurai, 1990; Spangler, 1990).
Another benefit is using older faculty who are moving into a semi-retired or even retired
stages. These individuals can teach part-time allowing them to remain a part of the institution as
well as providing expertise and continuity (Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Lee, 1997).
Disadvantages of Using Part-time Faculty
With the many benefits, the literature also cites real, perceived, and potential problems
with using part-time faculty. With more part-time faculty, there is the belief that the quality of
programs may be affected because these individuals may not be able or want to participate in, or
even be concerned with, institutional activities such as inter/intra-departmental collegiality,
governance, course content, curriculum development, faculty-student interaction, and student
advising (Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Haeger, 1998; Lee, 1997; Roueche et al., 1995). This section
27

will discuss the institutional problems resulting from use of part-time faculty addressed in the
literature.
Effect on Full-time Faculty
A 1988 Commission On The Future Of Community Colleges stated that “within the next
12 years, approximately 40% of all community college faculty who now teach will retire”
(Banachowski, 1996b, p. 7) with many of these positions being filled by part-time faculty
(Engleberg, 1993; Mangan, 1991). With the increasing use of part-time faculty, decreasing
number of full-time positions, and extra pay for course overloads, there may be a harmful effect
on full-time faculty (Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Twigg, 1989).
Another significant impact from the overuse of part-time faculty is that it may create a
“false economy” (Gappa & Leslie, 1993). Although economical savings from the use of part-
time faculty may be perceived, the cost to faculty within departments may be significant with
increased responsibilities to full-time faculty in areas such as advising, curriculum development,
and program coordination (American Association of University Professors, 1998; Gappa &
Leslie, 1993; Mize, 1998; Styne, 1997). Furthermore, the savings may be offset by lack of
program coherence, reduced faculty involvement with students, and reduced student learning
(American Association of University Professors, 1998).
An additional “hidden cost” of using part-time faculty is the growing costs of
unemployment benefits to institutions (Nance & Culverhouse, 1991-92). Many states require
only a short period of work time to qualify for unemployment, and part-time faculty are utilizing
this system to compensate for breaks in their employment. Interestingly, Nance & Culverhouse
note that most deans and department heads are usually unaware of this problem.
Professionalism of Faculty
With part-time faculty numbers growing in community colleges, there is the potential for
community college faculties to become predominantly part-time (Lee, 1997). Clark (1988)
believed that the use of part-time faculty would affect the professionalism of the institution’s
faculty claiming that using adjuncts is “a disaster for the professorate… Nothing
deprofessionalizes an occupation faster and more thoroughly than the transformation of full-time
posts into part-time labor” (p. 9). In addition, Clark (1997) noted that part-time faculty have
long been in marginalized positions with little influence over decisions and little opportunity to
be an active member of the collegiate environment. Overuse of part-time faculty lessens
28

opportunities for academic professions and may lead to lower salaries for entering, full-time,
tenure-track faculty that may lead to diminished quality of faculty recruits in undergraduate
education (American Association of University Professors, 1998).
Quality of Teaching
Another concern for the institution is the quality of teaching provided by adjuncts. The
belief by many in academe is that the quality of part-time faculty is not as good as full-time
faculty (Mize, 1998). German’s (1996) survey of full-time faculty showed that 80% believed
that use of adjunct faculty had a negative affect on academic excellence. Lankard (1993) noted
that many part-time faculty are hired for their professional abilities and expertise but may have
little training in teaching skills; however, there are studies that support this “belief” as well as
ones that challenge it.
Thompson (1992b) and Samuel (1989) believed that academic integrity is undermined
because using part-time faculty leads to a differentiation in teaching services (See also
Banachowski, 1996a, 1996b). Digranes and Digranes (1995) credited this differentiation with
the failure of many part-timers to incorporate new teaching methods. This is evident in Kelly’s
(1990) study of teaching methods used by faculty at Fullerton College in California; 93% of
part-time faculty used the traditional lecture method.
Critics believe a differentiation in teaching makes part-time faculty less effective than
full-time faculty. In a single site case study, Spangler’s study of reading and writing
examinations at Los Angeles Valley College indicated that students of part-time faculty did not
score as well as students of full-time faculty (1990; Banachowski, 1996a, 1996b; Mize, 1997).
Burgess & Samuel (1999) found that when studying retention and academic performance for
either developmental or regular courses, students who took a first course in a two course series
from an adjunct instructor and the second course from a full-time instructor seemed under
prepared for the second course. Also, the American Association of University Professors (1998)
believes that excessive use of and reliance on part-time faculty in lower-level courses may lead
to a greater number of entering or under prepared students causing a disadvantage for more
advanced students.
MacFarland’s (1998) study on grades awarded by part- and full-time faculty found that
adjunct faculty awarded more successful grades than full-time faculty. This study agreed with
Fedler’s (1989) study that supported the opinion that part-timers are not as difficult or
29

demanding on students as full-time faculty. Fedler compared students’ grades and found that
part-time faculty awarded higher grades than full-time faculty in all three institutions studied.
Banachowski (1996a) noted that although differentiation in grades of students instructed by part-
and full-time faculty may raise concern, the results may be interpreted from a different
perspective. Are part-timers easier instructors, or are they more effective in helping students
meet learning objectives? If they are more effective, more research on full-time faculty’s
teaching skills is needed (Banachowski, 1996a).
As previously discussed, many believe part-time instructors are inferior to full-time
instructors. Research does not necessarily back this perspective; there is only limited research
that supports the belief that part-time faculty are less effective teachers than full-time faculty.
There are several studies that found little to no difference between full- and part-time faculty
when focusing on the following aspects: instruction (Bolge, 1995; Sworder, 1987), student
success rates (Bolge, 1995; Iadevaia, 1991) student performance based on grade differentiation
(Stovall, 1994, as cited in Banachowski, 1996a), students’ post-test scores (Bolge, 1995), when
there was a control for discipline (Lowther et al., 1990, as cited in Banachowski, 1996), or in
overall quality of instruction (Roueche et al., 1995).
Rifkin (1998) surveyed 1,554 faculty members at community colleges around the country
and found that part-time faculty had greater expectations for student learning and achievement
than full-time faculty. This seems to contrast with the popular notion that part-time faculty have
lower expectations of students. Rifkin believed that this refutes previous findings that part-time
faculty inflate grades (Fedler, 1989) or undermine instructional quality (Thompson, 1992b).
There are several studies that show that part- and full-time faculty use similar
instructional methods (Kelly, 1992; Impara, Hoerner, Clowes, & Alkins, 1991). Furthermore,
Rhodes (1996) found that part-time faculty, deans, division directors and department heads all
rated similarly on teaching priorities with determining course goals, using a variety of teaching
methods, and clearly defining performance objectives as high priorities. The American
Association of University Professors (1998) discussed a study using a single course, section by
section review that found the quality of part- and full-time instructors were equivalent with the
available measures. Bogg’s (as cited in Banachowski, 1996a) study of freshmen at Butte
College found no difference in students’ performances based on having a part- or full-time
instructor.
30

Impact on Students
There are also disadvantages that impact students when using adjunct faculty. Adjuncts
are less likely to have offices or hold office hours, which leads to fewer interactions with
students (American Association of University Professors, 1998; Balch, 1999; Brewer & Gray,
2000; Mize, 1998; Weglarz, 1998). As discussed previously, students are often hesitant to take
classes from adjunct instructors due to the fear they will not get the full value of their tuition
money because of inferior teaching ability. “The students don’t pay any less (tuition) when they
are taught by a part-time instructor” (Finucane & Algren, 1997, p. 44). Also, students find that
part-time faculty teaches many core classes that create the foundation for their studies, possibly
leaving them at a disadvantage (American Association of University Professors, 1998).
Critique of Key Research
The following section discusses key research studies chosen for critique. These studies
were selected primarily because they are qualitative studies that deal with part-time faculty.
Gappa and Leslie (1993) dealt directly with part-time faculty with a focus on various types of
institutions, interviewing administration, full-time, and part-time personnel. Roueche et al.’s
(1995) study dealt directly with community colleges and has both a quantitative and qualitative
component. Other studies critiqued dealt with particular types of faculty or areas of interest.
Gappa and Leslie (1993) interviewed, individually and in groups, chief academic
officers, deans, department chairs, tenured faculty members involved in governance and
development, and adjunct faculty (a total of 467) at 18 colleges and universities to ascertain the
status of part-time faculty and to better understand the problems faced by such a large number of
individuals who teach in our institutions. The institutions were a representation of all types
within higher education with some chosen because of specific policies and practices on part-time
faculty. Information gathered included part-timers’ educational and employment backgrounds
and their perceptions of their jobs and information on institutional policies and practices on
adjuncts, as well as administrators’ and senior faculties’ views on the benefits and weaknesses of
using adjuncts. Along with the interview data, written policies, procedures, handbooks, and
other materials collected were analyzed.
Although the actual methodology is discussed only briefly in their book, the researchers
were able to provide for trustworthiness and authenticity in their study by establishing
transferability and credibility from several perspectives. First, they used 18 institutions in their
31

study that provided for greater generalization. Secondly, the use of two researchers and the
collection of data from both part-time faculty and administrators improved triangulation. Also
strengthening their study was the use of various sources for their document analysis, including
policies and practices from the institutional and state level, legislation, court documentation, and
other materials. Overall, the study was very well done, and it provided useful information about
part-time faculty.
The result of this study is the book, The Invisible Faculty: Improving the Status of Part-
timers in Higher Education. The book provided an investigation of part-time faculty in higher
education. It carefully examined the myths and realities surrounding part-time faculty. Findings
of the study, dispersed throughout the literature review, include the following: who serves as
part-time faculty including demographic and employment profiles; what forces lead to the use of
part-time faculty, how usage is affected by fiscal issues; when and why institutions employ
adjuncts; and what institutional policies and practices are in place. From their study, Gappa and
Leslie developed 43 recommended practices for institutions when dealing with part-time faculty
(See Appendix D).
Gappa and Leslie concluded “a college or university strengthens itself through the wise
use of part-time faculty” (p. 277). Therefore, they encouraged institutions to take a proactive
approach to dealing with part-time faculty. Unfortunately, the status quo is often difficult to
overcome within institutions and policy-making arenas. Furthermore, they warned against the
exploitation of adjuncts believing that institutions can do serious long-term damage to the
academic integrity by overlooking, overusing, and abusing part-timers.
They also concluded that issues of part-time faculty will have to be addressed in order to
ensure the quality of the curriculum. With part-timers carrying a large amount of the teaching
load, especially in the lower-level, often foundational classes, it is important to ensure they are
quality instructors. Furthermore, the adjunct faculty provide a large pool of potential full-time
faculty from which institutions may draw. This is extremely important to ensure enough quality
teachers for the large number of students who will be entering the postsecondary system.
Gappa and Leslie believed that much is to be gained by understanding part-time faculty
and integrating them into the academic institution at all levels of participation. These faculty
members are skilled teachers that can and do strengthen the academic programs and the overall
institution.
32

Roueche, Roueche, and Milliron (1995) built on Gappa and Leslie’s 1993 study creating
a profile of community college part-time faculty from the administrators’ perspectives. The two-
part study, consisting of a national survey combined with telephone interviews resulted in the
book, Strangers in Their Own Land: Part-time Faculty in American Community Colleges. The
study had three goals: to review important issues in the part-time faculty debate, to describe the
current extent of community colleges’ reliance on part-time faculty, and to identify and
showcase selected successful part-time faculty utilization and integration programs (p. 23).
The researchers surveyed a stratified random sample of member colleges of the American
Association of Community Colleges (AACC) with an overall response rate of 62.4%, which is
higher than a typical national mail survey. With the inevitable limitations, Roueche et al. (1995)
contend that the data effectively represented “trends in the employment of part-time faculty in
AACC member colleges” (p. 27).
From the study, the following data were reported, and conclusions were made:
1. 58.3% of all faculty in AACC institutions are part-time faculty with district and larger
community colleges more likely to employ part-time faculty than smaller institutions.
2. Of the credit hours taught, part-time faculty taught 33.6% while full-time faculty taught
66.3%; no distinction was made for noncredit hours.
3. The salary range was $424 per course to $3,852 per course with the mean salary at
$1,197. Furthermore, institutions that paid full-time faculty more tended to pay part-time
faculty more.
4. Part-time faculty benefits were offered by less than 24 institutions. Where benefits were
offered, few part-time faculty met the minimum requirements.
5. Part-time students are more likely than full-time students to be taught by part-time
faculty because part-time faculty are more likely to teach at times, the level, and the type
of courses in which part-time students enroll.
6. 54% of the respondents agreed that part-time faculty would increase in the future, and 26
% felt it would remain the same.
7. The selection and hiring process was ranked as the most important process in the use of
part-time faculty. The remaining issues were ranked in the following order of
importance: orientation, evaluation, recruitment, staff development, involvement in
college life, and retention of part-time faculty (pg. 37).
33

In the second part of the research, respondents to the survey were asked to recommend
institutions that had exceptional part-time faculty programs and policies. From the referential
sampling, telephone interviews were conducted with 30 community colleges (including three
from Florida: St. Petersburg Junior College, Indian River Community College, Valencia
Community College) using a set of thematic questions centering on the issues of recruitment,
selection, orientation, integration, evaluation, and retention of part-time faculty. This
information was then placed into an ACCESS database and compared across institutions. The
remainder of the book is the result of the telephone interviews.
The researchers concluded that community “colleges must take serious steps toward
improving the utilization and integration of part-time faculty” (p. 154). To establish such a plan,
the researchers recommended the following steps based on their interviews:
1. All part-time faculty should be recruited, selected, and hired with clear purpose and
direction.
2. All part-time faculty should be required to participate in substantial orientation activities
and provided with faculty support structures.
3. All part-time faculty should be required to participate in professional development
activities.
4. All part-time faculty should be integrated into the life of the institution.
5. The performance of all part-time faculty should be evaluated as seriously and
consistently as full-time faculty.
6. Part-time faculty should have equitable pay schedules (p. 154-156).
Roueche et al.’s study provided excellent insight into the policies and practices of
community college institutions. The survey provided information specifically focused on part-
time faculty in community colleges while the telephone interviews provided unique insight into
community colleges with successful part-time faculty policies. To establish trustworthiness,
transferability was established through the use of purposive sampling. The use of multiple
sources established credibility through triangulation. The use of a qualitative and quantitative
component also improved reliability and validity.
The results of the study are from the administration’s point of view. With the exception
of approximately three full-time faculty members, the remaining interviewees were
administrators. There is no indication of any interviews with part-time faculty. Gappa & Leslie
34

(1993) and Roueche et al. (1995) make an excellent foundation to study part-time faculties’ at
community colleges.
Finucane & Algren’s (1997) pilot study investigated the socialization of part-time faculty
in academic settings utilizing the theoretical framework of Van Maanen‘s (1975) three stage
socialization process: anticipatory socialization, entry/encounter phase, and the metamorphosis.
To obtain their data, the researchers used in-depth interviews of eight part-time faculty members
from different institutions in the Northeast Ohio area; four participants were strangers to the
researchers, and the other four were casually known on the professional level. All interviews
were audio-taped and transcribed and were approximately 30-45 minutes in length.
The following are the key findings from the eight part-timer instructors’ “breaking in”
periods: 1) Part-time employees often felt isolated and lamented not being able to establish
professional and personal relationships with peers. 2) Part-time faculty believed the lack of
professional development could have serious consequences on the quality of the classroom
instruction and their own career advancement. 3) Those who have had extensive experience in
the classroom, college or high school level, were more likely to be satisfied with socialization
opportunities available to them. (p.17)
There are three issues to address when critiquing the study. First, although the study was
titled as a “pilot study,” the researchers did not discuss at length the limitations of their findings.
Most notably, the small sample size provides for limited generalization, but using faculty from
differing institutions, a multi-case study, does provide for greater generalization. Secondly, the
issues of triangulation, reliability, confirmability and dependability were not addressed. Finally,
when presenting the results of the study, the researchers’ use of actual dialogue provides
emphasis to their findings, but examples should have been limited to one per finding/issue. A
possible way to incorporate more findings would be an appendix of excerpts from the transcripts.
William’s (1994) study of Yavapai College is a good example of a single site case study.
He discussed the evolution of the part-time faculty evaluation policy implemented by Yavapai.
Yavapai used three forms of evaluations: standardized student forms, administrative in-class
evaluations, and self-analysis evaluations.
Williams gave a thorough but succinct description of the institution including its history
to date. He provided the reasons for implementing the evaluation process, the types of
evaluations, and the process of developing the evaluations.
35

The sample used in this study was a report for 30 instructors for the 1986 Fall semester.
Furthermore, the institution has an ongoing process of reviewing student evaluations and
comparing them with district information and administrative and self-analysis evaluations.
Through their analysis of the evaluations over time, Yavapai has found that students are
honest about the instructors and courses with a close comparison of students’ evaluations and
observer’s in-class view. Through the development of their evaluation policy, Yavapai has
found that “completing the part-time faculty evaluation is important if:
1. the instruments collect the proper information
2. the results of the evaluation are truly reviewed
3. prescription for improvement is available
4. the institution wants part-time faculty to feel important in what they do and be able to
improve teaching
5. the institutions want the clients (the students) to feel that they have some part in
institutional change and control over their own learning environment” (p. 40).
As with Finucane & Algren’s (1997) study, generalizability is a key problem with this
single-site case study. Williams’s intent, however, was not to provide a theoretical framework
but to provide a strong case on how an evaluation policy can and should be implemented.
Grenzke (1998) studied how adjunct faculty were affected by “quality issues.” The
National Education Association’s Higher Education Research Center conducted extensive
interviews of 396 union and 404 non-union members of part-time faculties from four states:
California, Washington, Minnesota, and Michigan. The states were chosen because they were
geographically diverse, had both voluntary membership and agency-fee bargaining units, and
had a significant number of part-timers who belong to the union (p. 1). The report can be viewed
as two separate studies since the findings between union and non-union adjuncts were not
combined, and the author suggested that if there are different results for the members and non-
members, the non-members were more typical of the representation. Furthermore, the author
emphasized that this study was not intended to represent part-time faculty nationwide.
The findings in the study are the following: 1) two-thirds of the part-time faculty held
other jobs; 2) approximately one-half spent less than 20 hours per week at their other jobs; 3)
they were experienced and provided a stable workforce for their institutions; 4) approximately
half earned less than $2,500 per course; 5) humanities, English, and language had the highest
36

percentage of faculty; 6) more women preferred part-time for personal reasons; 7) there were
fewer multi-year contracts than in 1993; 8) adjuncts in states with bargaining units were much
more likely to hold office hours than those in 1993; 9) adjuncts were much more likely to be
evaluated by students and administration than peers; 10) future employment was dependent on
formal evaluation for just over half of adjunct faculty (p. i).
There are several problems with Grenzke’s report. First, the report is presented in
graphical form, and it is difficult to understand the information. Also, there is no information on
the actual questions asked in the interviews. Third, the article did not cite any supporting
research other than the NSOPF (1993). Fourth, the presentation of the information does not
provide any information on why the study was conducted or the methodology of the study.
Although the information presented from this study is useful if one can decipher it, a much
greater impact would be made if it were presented in a more thorough manner. The size of the
sample could provide for generalizations, at least within the four states studied, but the limited
information presented is a hindrance.
Benjamin (1998) used the 1993 NSOPF to study characteristics of part-time faculty by
general fields of research and instruction. Although quantitative in design, it dealt directly with
part-time faculty and fields of study that are pertinent to this research project. He divided faculty
into two clusters: a vocationally oriented cluster (VOC) and a liberal-arts-oriented cluster
(LOC). He concluded the following information for each cluster:
Vocationally oriented part-time faculty better fit the “typical” picture of part-time faculty.
They brought more advanced preparation and “real-life” experience to the classroom. They
were more likely to have outside jobs that allowed them to work at lower paying, part-time
wages. They required less out-of-class time for grading and office hours, and they enjoyed the
benefits of working part-time such as professional contribution to their institutions.
The liberal-arts-cluster of part-time faculty were much more discontent than the VOC
part-timers. They were much more dependent on their wages, had less job security, lower
household incomes, and a greater obligation to perform uncompensated, nonacademic work.
They were less likely than VOC part-time faculty to have degrees beyond the master’s level.
Benjamin concluded the LOC part-time faculty felt “constrained and economically vulnerable”
(p. 58).
37

Benjamin noted that more research needed to be conducted on part-time faculty,
especially considering that a large number of lower level, liberal arts classes are being taught by
LOC part-time faculty who are undercompensated and insecure. He further advocated study of
these individuals because of “the educational consequences of shifting lower-division, liberal
arts instruction to faculty who have negative performance incentives and lack the time and
security essential for excellent instruction” (p. 59).
Benjamin provided useful quantitative information on part-time faculty. This analysis
provided further proof that part-time faculty have differing needs and desires within the various
fields of study and research, and these differences need to be determined to provide more useful
information to those who hire and support part-time faculty.
Antony & Valadez (1998) conducted a study of job satisfaction among part-time faculty
at different types of postsecondary institutions. The researchers utilized the 1993 NSOPF data,
which sampled 974 institutions and 31,354 faculty, for their study. From the NSOPF data, part-
time faculty members, whose primary responsibility was teaching, were used for analysis; 7,522
part-time faculty responses were utilized in the study. Although the survey addressed various
aspects of faculty work, Antony & Valadez focused their study on the 15 items that pertained to
job satisfaction. Utilizing an exploratory factor analysis, they grouped 14 of the items into three
dimensions: Satisfaction with Personal Autonomy (alpha = .87) measured how satisfied faculty
are with their authority to develop course content and work independently (p. 10); Satisfaction
with Students (alpha = .79) measured satisfaction with the time available to advise students and
quality of students (p. 11); and Satisfaction with Demands and Rewards (alpha = .77) measured
satisfaction with work loads, job security, opportunities for pay and advancement, and pay or
benefits (p. 11). The final variable, Overall Job Satisfaction, was used as a global measure of job
satisfaction (p. 8).
In addition, the researchers conducted analyses of the mean satisfaction of all the
variables as a function of several socio-demographic variables and institutional type.
Comparisons were made between full- and part-time faculty and between part-time faculty at
two- and four-year institutions.
Antony and Valadez found that full-time faculty were significantly more likely than part-
time faculty to be satisfied with autonomy and students. Interestingly, full- and part-time faculty
were equally satisfied with the demands and rewards of their jobs. From the overall job
38

satisfaction indicator, part-time faculty were significantly more satisfied with their jobs than full-
time faculty, a contradiction of a popular notion of part-timers’ disenchantment with academic
work (p. 12-13).
There are several other interesting findings in the study. The study showed that full-time
faculty were more likely to leave their current jobs for a tenure track position and view tenure as
a necessity for engaging in academic work (p. 13). Antony & Valadez noted that this did not
support another belief—part-timers were just biding their time until they can obtain a tenured,
full-time position. Furthermore, full-time faculty were more likely to move to a job with better
benefits, research facilities, job opportunities for spouses, and geographic location.
From the institutional perspective, little difference was found between part-timers at two-
and four- year institutions when asked whether they would choose an academic career again;
both indicated a strong commitment to academic work. However, part-timers at two-year
institutions were more likely to leave their current jobs for ones with a higher salary, tenure-
track positions, increased job security, opportunities for job advancement, better benefits, better
instructional facilities and equipment, greater opportunity to teach, and greater opportunities for
administrative responsibilities (p. 17).
Part-time faculty at four-year institutions were more likely to move to a new position that
had better research facilities, which implies that they may be more research oriented. Part-time
faculty at four-year institutions were significantly more satisfied with autonomy which may stem
from the fact that two-year institutions are more centralized leaving faculty with less of a voice.
They were also more satisfied with the students than their two-year counterparts, but part-time
faculty at two-year institutions had greater overall job satisfaction (p < .001).
Antony & Valadez concluded that part-time faculty were satisfied with their roles.
Furthermore, it may also be concluded that part-time faculty do not have many of the duties
imposed on full-time faculty allowing them to do what they most enjoy—teach; thereby creating
increased job satisfaction.
In critiquing Antony and Valadez study, their methodology was sound. The data source
for the study was the 1993 NSOPF findings. The large sample (31,354 faculty) and high
response rate (86.6%) provided a good source for generalizing findings. Also, the sample of
part-time faculty from the NSOPF study was 29.2% of the overall sample. Although Antony and
Valadez did not discuss limitations in length, the strong sample size and thorough evaluation of
39

the data provided useful, valid, and reliable findings and conclusions. Furthermore, they
provided a framework and foundation for future research in full- and part-time faculty’s job
satisfaction.
Further research needs to be done to determine why part-time faculty are more satisfied
with their jobs overall while being less satisfied with autonomy and students. Also, dimensions
of satisfaction and models and policies that increase satisfaction need to be studied.
Job Satisfaction: A Theoretical Framework
Job satisfaction has been defined in numerous ways. For the purpose of this study, it is
defined as “how people feel about their jobs and different aspects of their jobs” (Spector, 1997,
pg. 2). Spector gave three reasons for studying job satisfaction: 1) humanitarian perspective–
individuals deserve fair treatment and respect in their job; 2) utilitarian perspective–how an
individual is treated often leads to the employee’s behaviors that can affect organizational
functioning, both positively and negatively; and 3) organizational functioning–understanding
employees’ job satisfaction within various units can pinpoint troubled areas (p. 2).
Why is job satisfaction important? There can be both positive and negative ramifications
to job satisfaction that may affect job performance, employee behavior, employee physical and
psychological well-being, and life satisfaction (Spector, 1997). Understanding these
consequences can help organizations to provide better working environments for employees as
well as endeavor to improve employee productivity.
One of the earliest studies of job satisfaction was conducted by Frederick Herzberg and
his colleagues in 1959 (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman). Herzberg et al. discussed the two-
factor approach to job satisfaction, which included hygienes and motivators. Herzberg et al.
believed that job satisfaction and dissatisfaction were parallel as opposed to opposite of each
other. Hayes (1984) noted that these factors were based on extrinsic (hygienes) and intrinsic
factors (motivators), where extrinsic factors related to the content of the job and intrinsic factors
related to the context of the job.
Hygiene factors include supervision, interpersonal relations, physical working conditions,
salary, company policies and administrative practices, benefits, and job security. “When these
factors deteriorate to a level below that which the employee considers acceptable, then job
dissatisfaction ensures. However the reverse does not hold true” (Herzberg, 1959, p. 113). If
these hygiene factors are not sufficiently met, the result can be lower job satisfaction if not
40

properly addressed; however, high levels of satisfaction are not guaranteed if the hygiene factors
are present (Rainey, 2001).
Herzberg et al. felt that positive job attitudes derived from an individual’s need for self-
actualization, which ties into Maslow’s (1954) hierarchy of needs. Herzberg et al. defined these
job factors as motivators. Motivators include achievement, recognition, the work itself,
responsibility, and personal growth/advancement. Although both hygienes and motivators meet
the needs of the employee, Herzberg et al. noted that motivators were the factors that improved
job satisfaction and helped to improve job performance, while satisfaction of hygiene needs
helped to prevent job dissatisfaction.
Another theory of job satisfaction is the need gratification theory proposed by Wolf
(1970). This theory also derives its framework from Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and has two
factors that are similar to Herzberg et al.: the context factor (hygiene) and the content factor
(motivator). According to Wolf (1970), job motivation is affected by Maslow’s hierarchy and an
individual “will actively seek to gratify his active need or needs” (p. 91). Depending on the
individual’s hierarchy level, the impact of content or context elements can either increase or
decrease job satisfaction. Context elements include company policy and administration, working
conditions, job security, technical supervision, status, and interpersonal relations with superiors
and peers. Content elements include achievement, recognition for achievement, the work itself,
responsibility, and personal growth and advancement (p. 91).
Herzberg found that salary could serve as either a motivator or hygiene. In addition, the
perception of equity as opposed to level of salary had a greater impact on the individual’s job
satisfaction or dissatisfaction. As with Herzberg, Wolf believed that salary could be seen as a
satisfier or dissatisfier and classified it as a context element. “According to need gratification
theory, salary will act as a motivator only when an individual has a high expectancy that he can
increase his salary (and thus obtain the various gratifications additional income can buy) through
job-related behaviors, that is, when he sees a direct relationship between pay and job
performance” (p. 92). Beck (2000) described this perception as equity theory, which suggests
that “there is greater job satisfaction if the worker perceives that the return for her or his work is
equitable” (p. 410). One of the main criticisms of Herzberg’s theory is that he did not feel salary
had a significant impact on job satisfaction or motivation. Lawler (1971), who disagreed with
Herzberg et al., cited numerous surveys that showed the importance of salary on motivation and
41

satisfaction because it was an indicator of the motivators such as performance, achievement, and
recognition.
Although one would think that high job satisfaction would imply high job performance,
research shows only a moderate correlation with job performance (Iaffaldano & Muchinsky,
1985; Petty, McGee, & Cavender, 1984). Research indicates a better correlation with job
satisfaction when job performance is tied to rewards (Jacobs & Solomon, 1977). To date, a
thorough explanation of the cause of these relationships has not been determined (See Spector).
Use of part-time workers is increasing in many organizations, and the motive is usually
fiscal (Spector, 1997). Part-timers are often paid less and cost less to the employer because
benefits, such as medical and retirement, are not required. Yet, part-time employees often do the
same work as full-time employees. Therefore, the logical conclusion to make is that they would
be less satisfied with their jobs; however, research on part-time work schedules and job
satisfaction has conflicting results.
With the continually growing population and general understanding that use of part-time
faculty is here to stay, little research has been conducted on the job satisfaction of part-time
faculty in community colleges or any postsecondary institutions. In the limited research that has
been conducted, part-time faculty’s overall job satisfaction is high and often greater than full-
time faculty’s (Antony & Valadez, 1998; Eberhardt and Shani, 1984; Gappa, 2000; Jackofsky
and Peters, 1987; Truell, et al., 1998; Tuckman, 1978; Weglarz, 1998). Also, the research
supports the belief that part-time faculty are less satisfied in specific areas such as wage
differentials, autonomy, students, co-workers, supervision, and rewards (Antony & Valadez,
1998; Feldman, 1990; Hagedorn, 1996; Miller & Terborg, 1979; Williams & Wiatrk, 1986).
Furthermore, the research show that these lower levels of satisfaction stemmed from the
following: problems with salary differentiation, lack of negotiating power, limited benefits, low
academic status, role ambiguity, institutional culture, lack of morale among adjuncts, limited
orientation, integration, and professional development (Banachowski, 1996a, 1996b; Cohen,
1992; Gappa, 2000; Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Gappa & Leslie, 1997; Hagedorn, 1996; Hoerner,
1991; Jacobs, 1998; Kelly, 1991; Langenberg, 1998; McGuire, 1993; Monroe & Denham, 1991;
Pollington, 1992; Roueche et al., 1995).
42

In analyzing job satisfaction of faculty, Hagedorn (2000a) provided a conceptual
framework. In developing the framework, she focused on mediators and triggers that lead to a
job satisfaction continuum.
“A mediator is a variable or a situation that influences (moderates) outcomes and
relationships between other variables or situations” (Hagedorn, 2000b, p. 1). Hagedorn’s
framework included three types of mediators: motivators and hygienes, demographics, and
environmental conditions. The first mediator incorporated Herzberg’s motivators and hygienes
including achievement, recognition, work itself, responsibility, and salary. Demographics in her
model included gender, ethnicity, institutional type, and academic discipline. Finally, the
environmental conditions she evaluated were collegial relationships, student quality or
relationships, administration, and institutional climate or culture.
Triggers are the changes or transfers that occur throughout a faculty’s career. Hagedorn
included changes in the following areas as triggers: life stage, family-related or personal
circumstances, rank or tenure, institution, perceived justice, and mood or emotional state. All of
these triggers lead to a change on the job satisfaction continuum.
Hagedorn (2000b) recognized that job satisfaction runs on a continuum and has
pinpointed and labeled three specific points on the continuum: disengagement,
acceptance/tolerance, and appreciation. In her study, Hagedorn placed most of the faculty
somewhere between the disengagement and appreciation; they have “accepted and evolved with
their work-related roles” (p. 9). Furthermore, she found that the triggers in the study led to
certain levels of job satisfaction. Job satisfaction tended to increase with advanced life stages.
Married faculty had higher levels of job satisfaction than single, separated, or divorced faculty.
Faculty who recently changed rank or moved to a new institution had lower levels of job
satisfaction. Finally, faculty who had a higher level of perceived justice tended to have higher
job satisfaction. Hagedorn concluded that overall job satisfaction can be affected by her three
pronged model.
Based on Hagedorn’s conceptual theory and job satisfaction research in organizations
and with part-time faculty, this study explored the use of part-time faculty through the lens of job
satisfaction. The study addressed the following research questions:
1. What are the demographic characteristics and academic backgrounds of the part-time
faculty participants of the study in the three community colleges studied?
43

2. What are the reasons for teaching part-time of the faculty participants in the three
community colleges studied?
3. What are the job satisfactions and dissatisfactions of the part-time faculty participants
in the three community colleges studied?
4. Are there differences in the perceptions or experiences of the community college
part-time faculty studied?
5. What are the institutional influences and policies affecting the use of part-time faculty
at the community colleges studied?
Conclusion
The American Association of University Professors (1998) concluded, “a part-time
faculty shouldering a significant share-both in size and educational importance-of undergraduate
teaching has become practically indispensable to the functioning of U.S. higher education”
(American Association of University Professors, 1998, p. 56). Roueche et al. (1995) concluded
that “internal demands, such as the increasing number and diversity of students, and external
demands, such as burgeoning technological advancements and competitive global markets, warn
us that maintaining the status quo is an irrational, foolhardy, if not suicidal, response to
inevitable change” (p. 24). Therefore, it is imperative that institutions understand the needs of
the future.
The research on part-time faculty focuses on a variety of areas, much of it opinions. If
one is coming from the position that part-time faculty are here to stay, thoroughly understanding
what type of individual serves as part-time faculty and why they choose to be adjuncts is
paramount to making them an integral part of the higher education arena.
44

CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES
Introduction
Although there is empirical data on part-time faculty through the National Center for
Education Statistics’ (NCES) NSOPF and other studies, it is difficult to understand the
experiences of individual adjuncts without one-on-one conversations. In exploratory research
that delves into the attitudes of individuals, it is important to have a descriptive, in-depth
understanding of the context, setting, and subjects’ frames of reference (Marshall & Rossman,
1989).
According to Wilson (1977), the traditional research techniques such as the laboratory or
questionnaire have become artifacts that leave the subjects suspicious and wary, or the subjects,
being aware of what the researcher may want, try to please them. Wilson also noted that, often,
the subjects do not know their own feelings and actions. Therefore, it is difficult for them to
articulate a response to questionnaires. Wilson espouses that a researcher “cannot understand
human behavior without understanding the framework within which subjects interpret their
thoughts, feelings, and actions” (p. 249). While it is important to understand the framework,
researchers can impose their world on subjects and destroy valuable data through use of coding
and standardized, objective approaches. Therefore, field study research can better explore the
processes and meanings of events (Marshall & Rossman, 1989; Wilson, 1977). In order to
provide information that will be useful to empirical researchers, policy makers, and practitioners,
this study utilized field research through the case study method.
Overview of Data Collection
This collective case study (Stake, 1995) involved site visits to three community colleges
in the state of Florida. Throughout this report, the three institutions studied will be referred to by
a general description: Transfer Community College (TCC), Rural Community College (RCC),
45

and Urban Community College (UCC). The selection of these institutions was based on
accessibility to the campus by the researcher and the demographics of the institution including
student headcount and geographic service area.
The researcher used a multi-method of data collection including focus groups, in-depth
interviews, and document analysis. In-depth interviews were conducted with chief academic
officers and campus or departmental adjunct faculty coordinators, if available. Focus groups
consisting of part-time faculty members from different academic disciplines were conducted on
each campus. In-depth interviews were also used for part-time faculty to provide a follow-up to
the focus groups. Each interview and focus group was taped and transcribed to improve
accuracy. In addition, the interviewer took field notes to supplement the transcribed interviews.
Finally, documentation on the use of part-time faculty was collected from two sources.
First, institutional policies and procedures were gathered. Secondly, state level documentation
was collected including policies and procedures, statutes, and court-rulings, if applicable.
Assumptions of Qualitative Research
When using a qualitative research design, it is important to understand the type of
paradigm the study will utilize and the assumptions of the chosen paradigm (Cresswell, 1994;
Guba & Lincoln, 1998; Marshall & Rossman, 1989). Guba & Lincoln (1998) defined a
paradigm as “a set of basic beliefs (or metaphysics) that deals with ultimate or first principles”
(p. 200). This study utilized a naturalistic paradigm, also referred to as constructivist (Denzin &
Lincoln, 1998; Guba & Lincoln, 1998). Based on the naturalistic paradigm, the following
section will discuss the various assumptions of constructivist research presented by Firestone
(1987), Guba and Lincoln (1989, 1998), Marshall and Rossman (1989), and McCracken (1988).
There are five main assumptions within research: ontological, epistemological,
axiological, rhetorical, and methodological. These assumptions determine what question the
researcher is addressing and how the researcher answers the question. It is important to note that
qualitative research is based in a phenomenological paradigm (Firestone, 1987). The following
is a brief synopsis of each assumption in qualitative research.
The ontological perspective asks the question, “What is reality?” In qualitative research
design, reality, as seen by the participants, is subjective and multiple; it is relative. In the case
study, the multiple realities often become apparent during the interviews.
46

The epistemological question determines the relationship between the knower and what
could be known. Constructivist epistemology is transactional and subjective. That is, there is
the assumption that the researcher interacts with the participants and the setting being
researched. Whether as an observer, participant observer, or interviewer, this interaction is vital
to answer the research questions through thick description.
Values play a large role (axiological assumption) in qualitative research. Unlike the
value-free, unbiased quantitative research, qualitative research is value-laden and biased. The
inquiry is bounded by values including the values of the inquirer and respondent, as well as the
values of the substantive theory, inquiry paradigm, and social and cultural norms of the inquirer
and respondent (Guba & Lincoln, 1988). Often, it is the values and biases that provide for
significant insight into better understanding the concept being studied.
The rhetorical assumption, or the language, of qualitative research is informal, evolving,
and in the personal voice. It is exploratory and affected by many changing factors.
Finally, the process of qualitative research (the methodological assumption) is inductive
with an emerging design with evolving categories or patterns that are identified during the
research process. Qualitative research is time and context-bound, and it is accurate and reliable
through verification (Marshall & Rossman, 1989, p.5; Firestone, 1987; Guba & Lincoln, 1988,
McCracken, 1988). This study will be shown to be valid and reliable using the concepts of
trustworthiness and authenticity.
Trustworthiness
Determining the validity of a research study is extremely important to its usefulness by
policy-makers, researchers, institutions, and study participants. Qualitative research is often
criticized as being difficult to prove as valid and reliable, and in order to do so, the study, “must
demonstrate its truth value, provide the basis for applying it, and allow for external judgments to
be made about the consistency of its procedures and the neutrality of its findings or decisions”
(Erlandson, Harris, Skipper, & Allen, 1993, p. 29); that is, it must be trustworthy. The study will
be determined to be trustworthy (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Erlandson et al., 1993) by addressing
the issues of transferability, credibility, dependability, and confirmability.
Transferability
Within qualitative research, the ability to replicate the study in other contexts or with
other subjects is transferability (Erlandson, et al., 1993; Lincoln & Guba, 1985); this is referred
47

to as external validity in quantitative research. Furthermore, in quantitative research, the use of
random sampling allows the researcher to generalize to the population from which the sample
was taken. Therefore, generalizability is seen as a weakness of the qualitative approach by
traditionalists because random sampling is not used in naturalistic studies. Nonetheless,
Erlandson et al. (1993) pointed out that naturalistic researchers do not believe that results from
one context may not be applied to another. They claimed, “’transferability’ across contexts may
occur because of shared characteristics” (p. 32). This transference is done not through random
sampling but through thick description and purposive sampling.
In addition, naturalistic studies provide the researcher with the ability to detail the
uniqueness of the context. In qualitative research, the uniqueness of the study is often the most
important aspect (Merriam, 1988). Stake (1995) asserted that uniqueness is important to
understanding, and it provides for particularization, “coming to know the particularity of the
case” (p. 39). Cresswell (1994) stated “the uniqueness of the study within a specific context
mitigates against replicating it exactly in another context. However, statements about
researcher’s positions—the central assumptions, the selection of informants, the biases and
values of the researcher—enhance the study’s chances of being replicated in another setting” (p.
159). Furthermore, the burden of using one set of findings from a qualitative study in another
study rests more with the researcher of the second study than the original researcher (Erlandson
et al., 1993; Guba & Lincoln, 1989; Marshall & Rossman, 1989); however, steps for replication
and transferability can be taken through use of thick description, purposive sampling, and a
detailed protocol.
Thick Description. A naturalistic researcher uses thick description to provide a detailed
picture of the context of the data allowing another researcher to determine whether there may be
transferability (Erlandson et al., 1993; Geertz, 1973). “Effective thick description brings the
reader vicariously into the context being described…often, we have found that an individual
whose first encounter with a setting is through an effective thick description has a sense of déja
vu upon actually visiting the setting” (Erlandson et al., p. 33). Lincoln & Guba (1985; Erlandson
et al, 1993) used thick description for two purposes: 1) to detail the specifics of the context and
2) to generate information that will be the basis for the emergent design and grounded theory.
Purposive Sampling. If thick description is utilized to determine transferability of a
context, purposive sampling must be used to determine where data will be collected (Erlandson
48

et al., 1993). Unlike random sampling, the objective of purposive sampling is to find data that
provides specific information and rich detail on a context (Patton, 1980). “Information-rich
cases are those from which one can learn a great deal about issues of central importance to the
purpose of the research, thus the term purposeful sampling” (Patton, 1990, p. 169; Erlandson, et
al., 1993, p.82). This requires a sampling “procedure that is governed by emerging insights
about what is relevant to the study based on the focus determined by the problem and
purposively seeks both the typical and the divergent data to maximize the range of information
obtained about the context” (Erlandson et al., 1993, p. 148).
The size of the sample may vary, and there is no set rule to determine it (Erlandson et al.,
1993). As Patton stated, “[i]n the end, sampling size adequacy, like all aspects of research, is
subject to peer review, consensual validation and judgment” (1990, p. 186).
Patton (1987) also discussed several strategies for selecting sample cases including:
extreme or deviant case sampling, maximum variation sampling, homogeneous samples, typical
case sampling, critical case sampling, snowball or chain sampling, criterion sampling,
confirmatory and disconfirming cases, politically important or sensitive cases, and convenience
sampling (p. 52-58). For the purpose of this study, the sampling strategy included homogeneous
samples of three community colleges in Florida and part-time faculty in these institutions.
Another method of sampling was the convenience sampling with the location and ability to
conduct interviews affecting the decision to choose the three institutions.
Detailed Protocol. Finally, Yin (1994) advocated using a detailed protocol for
qualitative research data collection in order to provide for replication in other settings. The
protocol for this study will be discussed in detail later in the chapter.
Credibility
Credibility is an assumption of the qualitative paradigm “in which the goal is to
demonstrate that the inquiry was conducted in such a manner as to ensure that the subject was
accurately identified and described” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, as cited in Marshall & Rossman,
1989, p. 145). To provide strength for the study, it must be valid; within the traditional
quantitative paradigm, this is referred to as internal validity. Marshall and Rossman (1989)
believed that the method of qualitative study through “an in-depth description showing the
complexities of variables and interactions will be so embedded with data derived from the setting
that it cannot help but be valid” within the parameters set (p. 145). In order to establish
49

credibility, “attention must be directed to gaining a comprehensive intensive interpretation of
these realities that will be affirmed by the people in the context” (Erlandson et al., 1993, p. 30).
The following strategies were proposed to help ensure credibility and were utilized in this study:
1) member checking, 2) triangulation, 3) peer debriefing, 4) referential adequacy materials, and
5) a reflexive journal (Erlandson et al., 1993; Firestone, 1987; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Marshall
& Rossman, 1989; Stake, 1995).
Member Checking. One of the most important techniques in establishing credibility is
the use of member checking (Erlandson, et al., 1993; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Stake, 1995).
Member checking allows “members of the stakeholding groups to test categories, interpretations,
and conclusions” (Erlandson et al., p. 142), and only data that can be verified with member
checking should be used in the findings (Erlandson et al.).
There are several junctures within the study where member checking can be conducted:
1) At the end of the interview, the moderator can summarize the data and allow respondents to
correct errors in facts or challenge interpretations; 2) Follow-up interviews may be used to
clarify data from the original interviews; 3) Informal conversations with members of the
organization can provide clarification; 4) Copies of all or part of the report may be given to
participants with a request for written or oral feedback on the contents; and 5) A panel of
participants should be furnished with final copy of study for a final review (Erlandson et al.,
1993, p. 142; Krueger, 1994).
To provide for member checking in this study, several steps were taken. First, each
informant in the individual interviews and at least one individual from each focus group was
given the opportunity to read the transcription of his or her interview or the focus group
interview, respectively, and provide written comments to the researcher. This provided for
clarification of content of the original interviews. Secondly, if further clarification was needed
on the interviews or focus groups, follow-up interviews or telephone calls were made to
individual participants. Finally, the researcher had “informal” conversations (conversations
outside the structured interviews or focus groups) with the participants of the study with a
detailed description of these conversations documented in the field notes.
Erlandson et al. (1993) warned against the problems of member checking. Some
individuals may not be willing to admit to problems within or criticisms of their institutions.
Also, participants may be too willing to verify data because all informants “share a common
50

myth or conspire to mislead” (p. 143; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Careful analysis of the data and
further interaction with the informants may help to overcome these problems.
Triangulation. In order to establish internal validity, the researcher attempted to
triangulate the findings of the study. Stake (1995) defined triangulation as “working to
substantiate an interpretation or to clarify its different meanings” (p. 173), or “the act of bringing
more than one source of data to bear on a single point” (Marshall & Rossman, 1989, p. 146).
Use of triangulation allows for data from various sources to be used for corroboration,
elaboration, or illumination of the research questions (Rossman & Wilson, 1985). When the use
of multiple sources of data, various researchers’ interpretations of data, and multiple methods of
collection lead to the same interpretation or conclusion, it provides strength to the argument that
the findings are valid and reliable and establishes credibility.
There are several types of triangulation: data source, methodological, investigator, and
theory. Data source triangulation (Patton, 1987; Yin, 1994) determines “if what we are
observing and reporting carries the same meaning when found under different circumstances”
(Stake, 1995, p. 113) or through other sources of data. Knodel (1993) noted that the use of focus
groups allows data triangulation by comparing statements within and across groups, thus
increasing reliability.
Another form is methodological triangulation where dissimilar methods such as
observation, interviews, videotapes, and document analysis are used, and the findings are
triangulated (Erlandson et al., 1993; Merriam, 1988; Patton, 1987; Yin, 1994). It allows the
researcher to compare findings from various data collection methods such as documentation to
support interview findings and improves the reliability of the study.
Investigator triangulation (Erlandson et al., 1993; Patton, 1987; Stake, 1995; Yin, 1994)
uses multiple observers. If observers report the same observations, confidence increases in the
accuracy of the observation (Erlandson et al.).
Theory triangulation (Patton, 1987; Yin, 1994) uses investigators from differing
theoretical viewpoints to review data in an attempt to triangulate. (Erlandson et al., 1993, noted
that this is difficult to do and is not achieved by many researchers.) If two investigators compare
data and come up with similar interpretations some triangulation has occurred. Additionally,
Flick points out that triangulation protocols “have come to be the search for additional
interpretations more than the confirmation of a single meaning” (as cited in Stake, 1995, p. 115).
51

To provide for credibility in this study, the following forms of triangulation were used.
First, methodological triangulation was used by collecting data from various sources through
different methods including the following: focus groups, individual interviews, and document
analysis. Utilization of both individual interviews and focus groups provided for strong
validation of findings (Michell, 1999). As recommended by Yin (1994), the study used multiple
sources including written policies and procedures at the institutional and state level to improve
triangulation.
Secondly, data source triangulation was used to provide data from various sources. The
sources included interviews with administrators, part-time faculty coordinators if available, and
part-time faculty from various fields of study. The various data sources provided the opportunity
to determine if findings triangulate across the different areas.
Furthermore, Yin (1994) advocated the use of a multi-site case study (minimum of three)
to enhance the researcher’s ability to examine if patterns, theories, or events are replicated in
different settings. For the purpose of this study, three community colleges were used to provide
a multi-site case study.
Peer Debriefing. Erlandson et al. (1993) emphasized the importance of the researcher
working with professionals in the field to review insights, perceptions, and analyses in order to
refine and redirect the inquiry process (p. 31). They called this step peer debriefing.
In this study, the researcher had two opportunities for debriefing sessions. First, an
assistant moderator was used in each focus group to assist with the mechanics of the interview
and take notes for the moderator. After each session, the researcher reviewed the information
gathered from the interview with the assistant as well as compared notes (Krueger, 1994). This
session was taped, transcribed, and utilized in data analysis.
Secondly, a colleague, who is an administrator in the Florida community college system
and also an adjunct faculty member, served as the researcher’s peer debriefer for this study. The
researcher and peer debriefer met periodically during the interviewing process and discussed the
researcher’s perceptions, hypotheses, and conclusions (Erlandson et al., 1993).
Referential Adequacy Materials. Referential adequacy materials included materials
such as photographs, videotapes, tape recordings by or for the researcher, catalogs, and
handbooks. These items “support credibility by providing context-rich, holistic materials that
52

provide background meaning to support data, analysis, interpretations, and audits” (Erlandson et
al., 1993, p. 139). These materials were used to support the audit trail for the study.
In this study, the researcher collected material, such as catalogs and brochures that helped
to provide insight into the culture of part-time faculty. Also, conversations with the researcher
were recorded, transcribed, and used for support. Finally, to help with the physical
surroundings, photographs were taken of the locations of the interviews as well as areas of the
different campuses.
Reflexive Journal. Lincoln and Guba (1985; Erlandson et al., 1993) recommended
using a reflexive journal to help the researcher keep track of her thoughts and actions during the
course of the project. The journal provides insight into methodological decisions and helps
document insights, logistics, and schedules. Furthermore, it supports all four functions of
trustworthiness (Erlandson et al, 1993). This journal will eventually become part of the audit
trail.
In this study, the researcher kept a journal with periodic entries detailing the progress of
the study. This journal was typed into a word processing program. All hand written and taped
journal entries were transcribed and put into the computer journal.
Dependability
An underlying assumption of qualitative research is that the world is always changing,
and replication is a problem with qualitative studies (Marshall & Rossman, 1989). The
dependability of the study is when “the researcher attempts to account for changing conditions in
the phenomena chosen for study as well as changes in the design created by increasingly refined
understanding of the setting” (p. 146-147). Lincoln and Guba (1985; Erlandson et al., 1993)
defined dependability as the ability of the study to show evidence that the findings would be
repeated if replicated with the same or similar subjects and context; within traditional research
this is referred to as reliability and is a precondition of validity (Erlandson et al., 1993).
Furthermore, the nature of a qualitative study does not assume “isomorphic relationships
between observations and realities” (Erlandson et al., 1993, p. 34). Instead of the traditional
approach with a goal for invariance in the data, it is “’trackable variance (Guba, 1981),
variabilities that can be ascribed to particular sources (error, reality shifts, better insights, etc.)”
(Erlandson et al., p. 34) that the researcher endeavors to find and describe.
53

Erlandson et al. (1993; Lincoln & Guba, 1985) proposed the use of a dependability audit
to allow external checking of the processes of the study. This “audit trail” includes
documentation and a running account of the process. An audit was used to help ensure
dependability for this study. The categories of the audit trail for this study are included in
Appendix E (Erlandson et al., 1993; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Marshall & Rossman, 1989;
Schwandt & Halpern, 1988).
Confirmability
Confirmability, in qualitative research, captures the traditional concept of objectivity
(Erlandson et al., 1993; Marshall & Rossman, 1989). That is, the researcher must address
concerns of researcher subjectivity. In the qualitative paradigm, the researcher understands that
objectivity is an impossible goal; instead she attempts to rely on the confirmability of the data
(Erlandson, et al.). “This means that data (constructions, assertions, facts, and so on) can be
tracked to their sources, and that the logic used to assemble the interpretations into structurally
coherent and corroborating wholes is both explicit and implicit” (Guba & Lincoln, 1989, p. 243;
Erlandson et al., 1993).
Although a researcher’s biases are inevitably included within the data, an audit trail will
provide an external reviewer the opportunity to determine if the products of the study (the
conclusions, interpretations, and recommendations) can be verified (Erlandson et al., 1993). In
order to control for bias in interpretation and possible subjectivity by the researcher, the
following steps were taken. The review committee provided feedback and critical questioning of
the researcher’s analyses. There was constant checking for and interpretation of negative
instances in the data (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Marshall & Rossman, 1989). There was continual
checking and rechecking of the data and testing of rival hypotheses. The researcher maintained
an audit trail with a file of transcripts, field notes, a reflexive journal, and other pertinent
information to decision-making rationale that was made available for others to inspect,
reanalyze, and challenge (Erlandson et al., 1993; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Marshall & Rossman,
1989; Schwandt & Halpern, 1988).
Audit Trail
Within qualitative research, it is important to maintain adequate records to show the
dependability and confirmability of a study that in turn leads to establishing the trustworthiness
of a study (Erlandson, et al., 1993; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Lincoln and Guba’s audit trail
54

categories will be incorporated with Schwandt and Halpern’s (1988, also see Erlandson, et al,
1993) four-stage model of planning to establish the audit trail categories for this study (See
Appendix E).
Authenticity
Although trustworthiness is important to qualitative research because it provides for the
methodological safeguard of traditional research, it is not sufficient; there must also be
authenticity to the study. Authenticity is the recognition of the status of separate realities that are
the strength of naturalistic studies (Erlandson et al, 1993; Guba & Lincoln, 1989). Guba and
Lincoln (1988; Erlandson et al., 1993) discussed five criteria for authenticity: fairness,
ontological authentication, educative authentication, catalytic authentication, and tactical
authentication (p. 111). These five criteria for authenticity can be shown through observations
and testimony of the respondents and can be recorded in the data as well as the audit trail.
Fairness
The concept of fairness requires that “the constructions of all stakeholders must have
equal access to the process by which group direction is determined” (Erlandson et al., 1993, p.
153). That is, it is the researcher’s role to seek out and communicate the constructions of the
individual stakeholders and within the group of stakeholders. Furthermore, an open access must
be maintained where constructions can be shared between stakeholders and the researchers.
Finally, Erlandson et al. discussed the necessity of renewing informed consent continuously
throughout the study because of the changing characteristics and relationships of the study.
Although this process is seen as a liability to traditional researchers, it provides a mechanism for
continuous dialogue and open relations between the stakeholders and the researcher (Erlandson
et al.).
Ontological Authenticity
Ontological authenticity shows that individual respondents have actually improved the
ways they experience the world due to the study; their understanding of their own constructions
has improved. It demonstrates “through the testimony of individual respondents that they have
in fact enhanced their understanding and through recorded observations that mark the expansion
of their constructions” (Erlandson, et al., 1993, p.154).
55

Educative Authenticity
Educative authenticity indicates that the respondents have an understanding of the
constructions of other respondents. This growth can be determined from the testimony of the
respondents or observation (Erlandson et al, 1993).
Catalytic Authenticity
Catalytic authenticity “represents the extent to which decisions and actions are facilitated
by the expanded constructions of the stakeholders” (Erlandson et al., 1993, p. 154). Evidence of
this criterion is the respondents’ willingness and ability to use the expanded constructions to plan
a course of action and use the new constructions in decisions.
Tactical Authenticity
The final criterion discussed by Guba and Lincoln (1988) is tactical authenticity—“the
ability to act toward change or empowered politically or educationally” (p. 111). It can be
determined by the testimony of the stakeholders, follow-up observations of stakeholders within
the context, and demonstration of empowerment during the actual research process (Erlandson et
al., 1993, p.154).
Data Collection Protocol
This study used a multi-method of data collection to improve trustworthiness and
authenticity. The following sections discuss the protocol of the study addressing issues of site
and sample selection, entry, reciprocity, researcher’s role management, data collection methods,
and ethical considerations. It concludes with a short synopsis of the pilot study conducted by the
researcher.
Site Selection
The sites chosen for the study were selected based on the following criteria. First, the
institutions’ availability and willingness to participate in the study were a major factor.
Secondly, the three institutions were located in geographically different locations in the state.
Thirdly, one institution serviced a rural area. The second institution serviced a larger,
metropolitan area. The third institution serviced an area with rural as well as city populations,
and it also had a large majority (60%+) of students who transferred into four-year institutions.
The institutions had different demographics, diversity in headcount as well as varying usage of
part-time faculty. Finally, the focus groups were held on the “main” campus or the campus with
the largest student enrollment. These criteria provided a broad base of experiences and data.
56

The three institutions studied will be referred to by a general description: Transfer Community
College (TCC), Rural Community College (RCC), and Urban Community College (UCC).
Transfer Community College (TCC). TCC opened in the mid 1960’s and has a
primary purpose as a transfer institution with over 60% of its students pursuing an Associate of
Arts (A.A.) degree and over 70% transferring to the State University System (SUS). The
institution services three counties with four campuses and has a headcount enrollment over
23,000 with a 27 to 1 student/teacher ratio.
Rural Community College (RCC). Also opening in the 1960’s, RCC services a two
county area with three campus locations. It is one of the smaller institutions in the state with a
headcount of approximately 7,000 students.
Urban Community College (UCC). Opening pre-1960, UCC is located in an urban area
that has numerous post-secondary institutions including public, private, two- and four-year
schools. Its service area is only one county and boasts a headcount enrollment of over 50,000
students.
Entry
Accessibility to the campus was a key component in choosing the three institutions. A
total of five institutions were contacted to participate. One declined because it was in the
process of reevaluating its adjunct program. The second institution initially contacted was
reluctant to provide approval. By the time approval was granted, approximately one month later,
another similar institution had been chosen instead.
To gain access, the institution’s President was contacted by e-mail. This correspondence
requested permission to use the campus as a site for the study, and it also provided a short
synopsis of the study as well as a copy of the memo to be placed in adjuncts’ mailboxes.
Furthermore, it outlined the needs of the researcher and set the dates for the focus groups.
(These were adjusted based on availability on the campus). A request was made for a
comfortable room such as a conference room to hold both one-on-one and focus group
interviews.
Once permission to use the institution was granted, e-mails were sent to the Chief
Academic Officer of each institution, either a Vice President for Academic Affairs or Provost,
requesting an interview and referrals of adjunct faculty and adjunct faculty coordinators who
57

were interested in being interviewed. Two administrators/coordinators were interviewed on
TCC & RCC, and one was interviewed at UCC.
Due to privacy issues, institutions would not give out personal addresses of adjunct
faculty. Therefore, the primary methods of contacting adjunct faculty were through their
mailboxes and referrals. A short memo was given to the Division/ Department Heads to place in
adjunct faculty mailboxes. Also, a memo or flyer was placed on all faculty bulletin boards
throughout the campuses. Finally, referrals for potential focus group and one-on-one interview
participants were requested from administrators, adjunct coordinators, and adjunct faculty.
The memo to the adjunct faculty gave a brief description of the purpose of the focus
group as well as a time frame (see Appendix F for a sample memo). It also provided a toll free
number for participants to call if they would like to participate. When an adjunct called to
participate, his or her name, number, and address were taken for confirmation and follow-up
purposes. They were also given an overview of the informed consent, and any preliminary
questions they had were answered. If the participant wanted to serve as a member checker, the
personal information gathered from this telephone call was destroyed at the end of the study.
Otherwise, it was destroyed following the focus group so that anonymity was ensured.
Individuals from various fields of study were registered to participate in each group.
There was a desired minimum of six participants, but only one group actually made the six. The
remainder of the groups varied from one to three participants. Although the ideal focus group is
six to eight members, the smaller groups provided valuable information for the study. Telephone
interviews were used to supplement the focus groups interviews.
Reciprocity
In respect to reciprocity for the participants, this study offered adjunct faculty an
opportunity to express their satisfaction/dissatisfaction with their roles within their institutions
and to provide suggestions for improvements. The participants were asked for further input on
their transcribed interviews, and, if interested, they will be sent a copy of the results. As an
incentive for attending, the interviewer provided a light meal for the participants. Also, there
was a drawing for a $50 gift certificate at the end of each focus group.
Role Management
The researcher explained to participants what the researcher’s role was. This helped to
build trust and manage possible political situations. The researcher was the moderator for all of
58

the focus groups and interviews. The advantages and disadvantages of the researcher serving as
the moderator is discussed in further detail in the section on using focus groups for data
collection.
Marshall and Rossman (1989) suggested that the researcher establish guidelines that will
provide for physical and emotional health and safety including avoiding going native (getting too
involved in the setting). These steps included time set aside between each interview to write
notes and reflect on the interview. The researcher evaluated her role in the interview to
determine if it was effective. Adjustments were made with each interview, such as determining
areas that needed to be covered and assessing new topics that could be discussed in the
upcoming interviews. Also after each session, peer debriefing was utilized to help keep the
researcher focused.
Data Collection Method – Individual Interviews
Marshall and Rossman (1989) described the interview method as “an interaction
involving the interviewer and the interviewee, the purpose of which is to obtain valid and
reliable information” (p. 82); however, they emphasized the “assumption fundamental to
qualitative research—the participant’s perspective on the social phenomenon of interest should
unfold as the participant views it, not as the researcher views it” (p. 82). Lincoln & Guba noted
that interviews help the researcher to reconstruct the past, interpret the present and predict the
future (1985; Erlandson, et al., 1993). A “conversation with a purpose” is how Denzin describes
interviews (as cited in Erlandson, et al.).
The following sections discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the individual interview.
In addition, it focuses on criteria for effective focus interviews that are applicable not only to
individual interviews but also to focus groups.
Strengths. An in-depth interview has several strengths. It allows one to obtain large
amounts of data quickly. When using more than one interviewer, it allows for a wide variety of
information and a large number of subjects. In addition, interviews allow for immediate and
future follow-up. With observation, interviews allow for the checking of description with fact
(Marshall & Rossman, 1989). Finally, individual interviews allow for greater depth than other
forms of data collection (Crabtree, Yanoshik, Miller, & O’Connor, 1993).
Weaknesses. As with any method of data collection, individual interviews also have
weaknesses. This method requires personal interaction with and cooperation from the
59

interviewee. Secondly, unfamiliarity with the jargon may lead to inappropriate questions by the
interviewer. Third, answers may not be comprehended properly by the interviewer. A possible
problem of great importance is that the interviewee may not be truthful. Finally, interviews can
collect excessive amounts of data that is difficult to interpret (Marshall & Rossman, 1989, p. 82).
In conducting an interview, Erlandson et al. (1993) recommended that the researcher and
respondents have a common vocabulary. In this study, the researcher’s experience as an adjunct
faculty as well as familiarity with the institutional settings provided an excellent background for
interviewing informants.
Criteria for Effective Interviews. In each individual and focus group interview,
Merton, Fiske, & Kendall’s (1990) four broad criteria for effective interviews were used: range,
specificity, depth, and personal context. First, the interview covered a wide range of topics
providing the researcher with predetermined topics as well as unanticipated topics. Merton et al.
considers the range sufficient if the interviews
1) exemplify types of resources to the situation which are anticipated on the
basis of prior analysis of the situation;
2) suggest types of interrelations between respondents to the situation which
were obtained in some other way (for example, through questionnaires or
observations);
3) bear upon aspects of the situation, and responses to these aspects, which were
not anticipated on the basis of prior analysis (p. 41).
Second, the moderator produced data on specific experiences of the participants. If an
interviewee or the group spoke in generalities, the moderator probed for specific details about
the aspects of their experiences.
Third, the moderator fostered interaction that encouraged participants to express their
experiences in depth. Depth attempts to report affective responses. “The interviewer seeks to
obtain a maximum of self-revelatory reports of how the situation under review was experienced”
(Merton et al., 1990, p. 95).
Finally, the moderator paid close attention to the personal context of the participants’
remarks. Merton et al. (1990) defined personal context as a “person’s prior attitudes and values
and certain of his social statuses and roles” (p. 115). Personal context consists of idiosyncratic
context and role context. Idiosyncratic contexts are occurrences that rarely happen even within a
60

homogeneous group. Role contexts are experiences that are common among homogeneous
groups and account for frequent responses. Both contexts provide useful information for data
analysis.
Selection of Individual Informants. Individual interviews were conducted with
administrators on the site campuses. The researcher interviewed the chief academic officer at
each campus. The researcher interviewed administrators of faculty who oversaw part-time
faculty on two of the three campuses. In addition, individual interviews were held with part-time
faculty if an academic area was underrepresented in the focus groups, if clarification was needed
from focus group interviews, or if part-time faculty were unable to participate in the focus group
due to schedule conflicts.
All focus groups and one-on-one interviews were held on campus. The interviews
ranged from 45 to 90 minutes in length, utilized an interview guide (Patton, 1987), and were
audio-taped and transcribed for data analysis. Questionnaires for all the interviews can be found
in Appendix G.
Data Collection Method – Focus Groups
Focus groups were the main method of data collection used in this study. Krueger (1994)
defined focus groups as “a carefully planned discussion designed to obtain perceptions on a
defined area of interest in a permissive nonthreatening environment” (p. 6). Frey & Fontana
(1993) defined a focus group as “a research technique that includes 8-10 persons brought to a
central location to respond to questions on a topic of particular interest to a sponsor or client” (p.
30). The primary purpose of using focus groups in a study is to collect qualitative data to answer
research questions (Morgan & Krueger, 1993, p. 11; Krueger, 1994). The following sections
will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of using focus groups, the selection of the focus
groups’ participants, and the focus group sessions.
Advantages. The advantages of using focus groups are numerous. In exploratory
research, focus groups are extremely useful because the method allows for a free-flowing
conversation among participants (Frey & Fontana, 1993; Morgan, 1997). Furthermore, the focus
group uses group dynamics to produce new or additional data. It also allows the researcher to
generate new ideas and identify new languages and symbols, and it can serve as a testing ground
for emerging hypotheses and analytic suggestions (Frey & Fontana, 1993, p. 33).
61

There are also numerous advantages to focus groups in collecting data. The method
allows the researcher to collect a large amount of data in a limited period of time on an exact
topic providing for greater efficiency making it a less costly method in respect to time and
money (Crabtree et al., 1993; Edmunds, 1999; Frey & Fontana, 1993; Krueger, 1994; Morgan,
1997). In comparison to individual interviews, two eight-person interviews generate as many
ideas as 10 individual interviews (Morgan, 1997). It is sometimes referred to as the “quick and
easy” method (Morgan, 1997), although this may be deceptive.
In addition to a large amount of data, focus groups can give us a wide range of data
(Merton et al., 1990; Morgan, 1997). Furthermore, it is a useful method to obtain information on
unobservable data that would not be evident in a participant observation method (Morgan).
The focus group allows the researcher to observe interaction between the participants on
the topic. This in turn can provide direct evidence of similarities and differences across groups
(Frey & Fontana, 1993; Morgan, 1997). “The comparisons that participants make among each
other’s experiences and opinions are a valuable source of insights into complex behaviors and
motivations” (Morgan, 1997, p. 15; Morgan & Krueger, 1993).
A focus group provides a respectful atmosphere for participants (Morgan & Krueger,
1993) that helps to reduce inhibitions among the group members (Merton et al., 1990) and
allows participants to express emotions that would not emerge in other methods (Krueger, 1994).
Furthermore, the focus group allows participants to be more explicit in their views and often
triggers participants’ memories to produce more detailed data causing a “cueing phenomenon”
(Morgan & Krueger, p. 17) that presents even more data (Frey & Fontana; Merton et al., 1990;
Morgan, 1997). The method also allows for probing and clarification by the moderator
(Edmunds, 1999, Krueger, 1994).
The focus group also helps to reduce the distance between the researcher and the social
context. This, in turn, provides a greater understanding of the context of the field and the
members’ relationships to the setting (Frey & Fontana, 1993).
Finally, using groups can provide direct data on the issues of consensus and diversity
within the group, especially pertaining to the topic of interest (Morgan, 1997; Morgan &
Krueger, 1993). Morgan noted that the greatest strength of focus groups over participant
observation and individual interviews is that it provides flexibility by allowing operations across
traditional boundaries (1997; Krueger, 1994).
62

Disadvantages. Although there are many advantages to using focus groups, there are
disadvantages and concerns that a researcher must take into consideration. In comparison to
participant observation, there is a trade-off with the naturalistic setting to a more unnatural
setting for the participants, and these settings are created and managed by the researcher who
plays a much greater role (Morgan, 1997) and must be skilled at moderating (Krueger, 1994).
There is a concern about the influence of the moderator on the group’s interaction
because the moderator must choose whether or not to control the discussion topics or allow for a
free flowing conversation (Morgan, 1997). Morgan noted that moderator’s influence is a
concern in all research, but he had found no hard evidence that a moderator’s influence on a
focus group is any greater than in an individual interview or participant observation.
There are other disadvantages to focus groups. The researcher is limited to verbal
behavior because the focus groups consist of interaction of the discussion groups in a controlled
setting (Morgan, 1997). This type of setting may cause inhibition to some, especially on
sensitive topics (Fern, 1982; Merton et al., 1990).
Another concern is that the group may affect the nature of data produced (Morgan, 1997).
There is the risk of domination by some & lack of input by others (Frey & Fontana, 1993;
Merton et al., 1990; Morgan, 1997). Krueger (1994) classifies members into four categories:
experts, dominant talkers, shy participants and ramblers (See Appendix H).
There is also a concern towards conformity and polarization. That is, the individual
participants may withhold data they would have shared in private or express more extremes in a
group than in private (Morgan, 1997). Morgan notes, “that for some types of participants
discussing some types of topics, the presence of a group will affect what they say and how they
say it” (1997, p. 15).
Another disadvantage is that focus groups provide less depth and detail about
participants’ experiences and opinions (Frey, 1982; Morgan, 1997). Furthermore, depending on
each participant’s interest in the topic, there is a concern of losing control of the topic or not
getting enough data (Morgan).
Although a focus group may produce more data in less time, the data may be difficult to
analyze (Krueger, 1994). Also, Crabtree et al. (1993) argue the validity of the claim that it saves
time. When all the time is factored in for preparation and planning, they believe it may take as
long or possibly longer than other methods.
63

Finally, setting up the logistics of a focus group has disadvantages. A one-on-one
interview can be held almost anywhere. Focus groups interviews must be scheduled, and
sometimes it is difficult to find a central location with a large enough space and schedule the
meeting time to work with all the participants’ schedules (Crabtree et al., 1993; Edmund, 1999;
Frey & Fontana, 1993; Krueger, 1994).
Focus Group Selection. In selecting the participants of the focus groups, Morgan’s
(1992) “Rules of Thumb” were used as a guideline: 1) use of homogeneous strangers as
participants; 2) rely on relatively structured interview with high moderator involvement; 3) have
six to ten participants in a group; and 4) have a total of three to five groups per site. Merton et
al. (1990) and Krueger (1994) noted that when a group comes from a single organization, such as
the same institution, it may be difficult to find a group of strangers. Additionally, appropriate
participants are the key to a successful study (Krueger, 1994). Therefore, the participants were
selected based on the following criteria.
The focus groups’ participants were volunteers from the part-time faculty at each
institution, and the researcher attempted to have a faculty member from each major
discipline/division area. There was a minimum of two focus groups per institution with one to
six individuals from various academic divisions in each group.
The groups were segmented based on break and control characteristics (Knodel, 1993).
The uniform control of the groups was that all members were part-time faculty. An attempt was
made to have a group composition with a mix of gender, race, and various lengths of
employment. The break characteristics of the study were the institutions with two focus groups
from each institution’s main campus.
For the purpose of this study, the part-time faculty’s area of study was not a break
characteristic. Instead, there was an attempt to provide as many varying academic areas as
possible with each group. There were three reasons for not using field of study as a break
characteristic. First, Gappa and Leslie’s (1993) study found “pockets” of dissatisfaction based
on area of study of the part-time faculty and suggested further research into this area. Using
individuals from various academic areas provided a broader range of experiences with
participants sharing their experiences within their departments. “Using focus groups to create
such interactions gives the researcher a set of observations that is difficult to obtain through
64

other methods” (Morgan, 1997, p. 46), and it will help to ensure authenticity (Erlandson et al.,
1993).
Secondly, being from various academic backgrounds improved the likelihood that the
individuals were not acquainted. With the nature of collegiality at academic institutions
however, some participants did know each other, but this should not affect the quality of the data
(Frey, 1982).
The final reason for not using field of study as a break characteristic was that it would
require a focus group from each department increasing the number of groups significantly. With
each additional group, the cost of the study rises. Therefore, the study was trying to reach as
many academic areas with as few groups as possible.
As stated before, the minimum number of groups per institution was two. However, the
researcher felt that additional groups were needed to achieve theoretical saturation (Glaser &
Straus, 1967; Krueger, 1994) and were added until no new information was found.
The researcher strove for diversity among the academic areas represented in the focus
groups, attempting to have at least one individual from each of the following areas: English,
mathematics, humanities, physical sciences, social sciences, business, education, and allied
health or other technical or clinical programs. Also, if data from the focus group interviews
needed explication, individual interviews, either in person or via telephone, were conducted to
provide clarification.
The interview sites and set-up are important for a successful group. “Perhaps the greatest
challenge to these internal focus groups is creating a non-threatening and informal organizational
environment necessary for focus groups to be effective (Krueger, 1993, p. 68). Krueger
suggested using a neutral, easy to find location with a table that allows participants to see each
other and provides for easy audio-taping.
The researcher scheduled a conference style room on each campus to conduct the focus
groups. Interviews with administrators were held in their campus offices. This provided greater
convenience for participants; however, if participants could not attend the focus groups, the
researcher conducted a telephone interview. The context of every interview was carefully
described in the field notes for inclusion in data analysis.
65

Each focus group had a moderator and assistant moderator. The researcher served as the
moderator for the session. The assistant moderator took notes during the interview. These notes
supplemented the tapes and served as a back up in the case of taping malfunctions.
The study had three assistant moderators. The assistant moderators were chosen on their
availability to attend the session and their expertise in taking notes. The primary roles of the
moderators were to set-up the room for the interview, ensure that each participant was fed,
handle the taping of the session, take notes as a back-up for the tapes, and provide feedback on
the group discussions. The assistant moderator’s responsibilities are listed in Appendix I and
were adapted from Krueger (1994).
Focus Group Session. The focus groups were 45 to 90 minutes long, depending on the
number of participants; participants were informed that the sessions would be approximately 90
minutes. The sessions were held at various times. The majority of the sessions were held in the
evening, 6:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. In an attempt to improve participation, two sessions were held in
the afternoon, 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. Each session began with a small meal and informal
conversation. This gave participants time to meet each other and accommodated latecomers. As
participants entered, they were allowed to chose a seat and make their own plate. The moderator
opened the interview with a welcome. Next, the participants read and signed an informed
consent letter (Appendix J) and answered a short, pen and paper demographic survey (See
Appendix K). Once finished, the moderator gave an overview of the purpose of the focus group
and the ground rules followed by the first question (See Appendix L). The session followed the
questionnaire for part-time faculty (Appendix G.1). The moderator concluded with a summary
of the discussion and a “thank you” for participating. The final task was the drawing of the $50
gift certificate.
Morgan (1997) noted that it is important to be aware of the conversation after the
sessions are officially over. Based on his recommendation, the tapes continued to run until the
moderator felt that all “useful” conversation had stopped.
At the end of each session, the assistant moderator debriefed the moderator on the session
(Edmunds, 1999; Erlandson et al, 1993). The debriefing session was taped, transcribed, and
included in the notes for analysis. All notes were labeled and filed for the audit trail.
66

Data Collection Method – Documentation
Along with the interviews, written policies and procedures from the following areas were
analyzed to determine if there was an impact on the use of part-time faculty: campus-wide and
departmental policies and procedures, Florida Statutes, State Board of Community College
policies, accrediting agencies’ guidelines, collective bargaining entities’ policies, and any
national policies affecting the state of Florida.
Ethical Considerations
Erlandson et al. discussed several ethical considerations in qualitative research: harm,
privacy, confidentiality, deception, and informed consent (1993, p. 155-159). It is important that
the individuals and groups within qualitative research retain control over their lives (Baker &
Hinton, 1999). To protect a research subject from harm includes a proactive approach that
protects the individual from physical or psychological harm such as loss of dignity or self-esteem
or loss of autonomy. In naturalistic studies, it is difficult to determine possible situations that
may arise during the course of the changing research context, but Erlandson et al. suggested that
the researcher assess each ethical dilemma faced with sensitivity and integrity. They note that
often these dilemmas lead to new, interesting, and useful constructions.
Privacy and confidentiality are ethical considerations in quantitative research, but they go
one step further in qualitative research by including not only dissemination of research data and
findings but also the personal space of the respondents that is declared off-limits to the study. In
order to ensure privacy and confidentiality in this study, the following steps were taken. Each
interview and focus group was audio-taped. The tapes were heard only by the researcher and the
transcribers. The tapes and full transcriptions were not made public. Any uses of the
transcriptions were done in such a manner as to provide for complete anonymity of the
informant. Any name used in the study is an alias given to the participant by the researcher to
protect the anonymity of the participant. If the researcher felt the anonymity of the
administrators could not be maintained due to the limited number interviewed, their data was not
used.
Erlandson et al. (1993) believed there is no justification for deception in qualitative
study. It defeats the purpose of having a free and open exchange needed for authenticity.
Finally, informed consent should be given at the beginning of the study. Additionally, it is
important to note that there is a constantly changing context of the research and therefore,
67

informed consent becomes an ongoing process. Although many traditional researchers see fully
informed consent as a potential detriment, it is seen by naturalistic researchers as an “opportunity
to daily renegotiate and expand the basis for informed consent as new opportunities for
collaborative activity emerge” (Erlandson et al., p. 155). Informed consent helps to validate not
only data but also the partnership of the informant in the research process (Baker & Hinton,
1999).
For the purpose of this study, the informants were given as much information as possible
as to the purpose of the study. The researcher endeavored not to include any forms of deception
and answered any informant’s questions as thoroughly as possible. Furthermore, she informed
the participants that she was also an adjunct at a community college in Florida.
In addition to the previously mentioned ethical issues, Guba and Lincoln (1989) and
Erlandson et al. (1993) also discussed the ethical considerations of empowerment, education, and
connection. The naturalistic researcher endeavors to empower the participants of the study. A
naturalistic study should also be educative allowing participants to learn from each other’s
constructions. Finally, promoting connection of shared constructions allows participants to
obtain a richer level of understanding and insight into other participants’ constructions
(Erlandson et al., p. 158-159). Keeping these ethical considerations in mind allows the
researcher to provide authenticity to the study.
Finally, the Florida State University’s Human Subjects Committee (Appendix M)
approved the study. The Committee ensures that no violations of ethical research standards have
been committed providing a safeguard to participants in the study.
Pilot Study
The researcher conducted a pilot study focus group at a nearby community college as a
precursor to the actual study. Through the pilot study, the researcher made several
methodological determinations. First, she found that the best method of contact was through the
adjuncts’ mailboxes because the institution would not give out personal information on
employees. Also, the adjuncts passed the information on to other adjuncts.
Secondly, the original reciprocity to participants was to be a small stipend, $10, to each
person; however, the focus group felt that providing an incentive such as a drawing for a gift
certificate for a larger amount of money would encourage faculty to participate. They felt that a
$50 gift certificate to a local restaurant or store would be adequate.
68

The third determination was the time set for the focus groups. The pilot study group was
held from 6:30 p.m. until 8:30 p.m. with a light meal provided at 6:30 p.m. and the actual session
starting at 7:00 p.m. The participants suggested starting earlier. Therefore, the start time for the
focus groups was moved to 6:00 p.m., which would give those off campus time to arrive from
their daily jobs while adjuncts on campus would not have to “hang-out” until the focus group
started, but focus group times would depend on room availability on each campus.
The final purpose of the pilot study was to give the moderator and assistant moderator an
opportunity to “practice” in an actual setting. A list was made of all items that were used during
the set-up and session to ensure smooth running groups for the actual data collection. Overall,
the pilot study proved very useful to the researcher and improved the process of data collection.
The researcher also conducted a one-on-one interview with the faculty member who
oversees the hiring of adjunct faculty at the same institution as the pilot focus group. Again, the
interview provided the researcher an opportunity to practice. It also provided an opportunity to
test the questionnaire guide and provided the researcher with feedback on the questions. The
faculty member believed the interview was very thorough and felt that useful information would
be derived from the data to be collected.
Data Analysis
“Qualitative data analysis is a search for general statements about relationships among
categories of data; it builds grounded theory” (Marshall & Rossman, 1989, p. 112; Glaser &
Strauss, 1967). It begins with data collection and continues throughout the process (Erlandson et
al., 1993; Krueger, 1994). Furthermore, revision of the analysis strategy may be revised during
the study on numerous occasions (Krueger).
The procedures for analyzing data collected in the interviews and site visits followed five
modes as suggested by Marshall and Rossman (1989): organizing data; generating themes,
categories, and patterns; testing emergent hypotheses against the data; searching for alternate
explanations; and writing the report (p. 114).
Organizing Data
The study used a transcript-based analysis utilizing transcripts of the interviews, field
notes, and debriefing sessions as well as documentation collected during the interviews
(Krueger, 1994). After transcription, data was organized by computer by subdividing
information into meaningful segments (Knodel, 1993). Field notes were edited and information
69

synthesized. This was an ongoing process and often coincided with the next step of generating
themes, categories, and patterns.
Generating Themes, Categories, & Patterns
The process of generating categories, themes, and patterns is the next mode. (It should
be noted here that this phase is ongoing from the beginning of the study.) In order to work
through this process, code mapping was developed to use with qualitative research software.
The NVIVO software package was used in this study for data analysis.
Code mapping begins with the development of an initial set of codes that correspond with
each item on the questionnaires used for the interviews (Knodel, 1993; Krueger, 1994).
Additional codes are created as new topics arise from the data collection (Erlandson et al., 1993,
Knodel). Knodel also recommended the development of nonsubstantive codes that assist in
analysis and write-up and detailed codes for analyses of specific topics (p. 46-47).
Knodel (1993) suggested using an overview grid to assist in the analysis phase. This grid
can be used to make inter- and intra-group comparisons. Furthermore, it can be placed in the
audit trail to increase the validity and reliability of the study.
In the analysis, the researcher searched for instances of internal and external
convergence—data that is internally consistent but distinct from one another (Guba, 1978, as
cited in Marshall & Rossman, 1989). Indigenous and analyst-construct typologies were used to
show classification schemes (Patton, 1980, 1987; Marshall & Rossman, 1989). Indigenous
typologies are created and expressed by participants and generated through analyses of local use
of language (Patton, 1980, p. 306-308). Analyst-construct typologies are created and expressed
by participants and generated through analyses of local use of language (Patton, 1980, p. 306-
308).
During this phase, logical analysis of the data was conducted where classifications
schemes, typologies, and data were cross-referenced with each other to generate new
interpretations leading to data that “might be logically uncovered” (Marshall & Rossman, p.
116). As patterns and themes were generated, new hypotheses emerged that were tested.
Testing Emerging Hypotheses
One of the key aspects of qualitative research is that the hypotheses often emerge during
the data collection and analysis phase. When a plausible hypothesis emerges, it must be tested
against the data by searching “through the data, challenging the hypotheses, searching for
70

negative instances in the pattern, and incorporating these into larger constructs” (Marshall &
Rossman, 1989, p. 118; Patton, 1987). Marshall and Rossman noted that this is also the stage
where data is evaluated for adequacy, credibility, usefulness, and centrality. Every hypothesis
must be stringently tested and alternative explanations explored.
Searching for Alternative Explanations
Once the researcher begins to establish patterns and categories, the researcher must
search for, identify, and describe alternative explanations. She must then explain how the
chosen explanation is better (Marshall & Rossman, 1989). The search for patterns, themes,
emerging hypotheses, and alternative explanations was an ongoing process from the beginning of
data collection through the writing of the final report.
Limitations and Assumptions of the Study
There are several limitations to a qualitative research design that may affect this study.
First, although a thorough investigation into all 28 community colleges would provide excellent
data, this was not possible due to time and cost constraints. Therefore, the case studies were
limited to three institutions. Using a purposive sample of only three institutions decreased the
generalizability of findings. Therefore, this study was not able to generalize to all institutions or
part-time faculty. However, it provides insight for specific institutions and points to potential
problems in other community colleges, especially within Florida’s community college system.
In addition, with only one researcher conducting interviews, it was difficult to cross
check frameworks from multi-sites as suggested by Miles and Huberman (1984). However,
using multi-sites improved the ability to check patterns, categories, and themes (Yin, 1994).
Another limitation when using interviews and focus groups is the inability of the
researcher to verify the truthfulness of the responses. With the use of three institutions and two
or more focus groups at each institution, the researcher attempted to provide triangulation of the
data to compensate for this limitation. In conducting interviews, the researcher was aware that
interviewing required the interviewee to give his or her perspective. In this study, the researcher
assumed that each participant in the study was truthful and honest in answering all questions.
There were also limitations to the researcher serving as the moderator. There are varying
opinions as to whether the researcher should be the actual moderator for a focus group (Krueger,
1994). Dr. Karen Monkman, an experienced researcher in qualitative studies at Florida State
University, determined that for the purpose of the study and the type of focus groups being
71

conducted, the researcher would be the best individual to serve as moderator (K. Monkman,
personal communication, October 18, 2000). The reason for this decision was based on the fact
that the researcher was most familiar with the literature and nuances of the study. Therefore, she
was better able to respond with appropriate questions and information; however, it is noted that
there is the potential for the researcher to knowingly or unknowingly search for specific
responses. She may also create a bias due to body language or response questions. Utilizing
thick description and member checking should help account for any instances of these types of
biases.
Finally, the participants were informed that the researcher/moderator had been an adjunct
previously. The researcher acknowledges that there may be bias in interpreting the data based on
the experiences of the researcher. However, every effort was made to evaluate the material from
an unbiased position. Furthermore, in conducting the sessions, it appeared that the participants
felt that there was greater understanding of the problems due to the researcher’s experience as an
adjunct.
72

CHAPTER 4
RESEARCH FINDINGS
Overview
This research study was conducted as an exploratory study of the use of adjunct faculty at
three of Florida’s community colleges and used a multi-case, qualitative design. The study was
framed through the lens of job satisfaction, which Spector (1997) defined as “how people feel
about their jobs and different aspects of their jobs” (Spector, 1997, pg. 2). There is a large body
of research on job satisfaction, especially within the organizational behavior and related fields
(See Spector, 1997). Spector noted the importance of job satisfaction because of the positive and
negative ramifications that may affect job performance, employee behavior, employee physical
and psychological well being, and life satisfaction (Spector, 1997).
Concerning part-time faculty, the assumption might be that they would be less satisfied
than full-time faculty. Interestingly, Eberhardt and Shani (1984) and Jackofsky and Peters
(1987) found that part-time employees had greater overall job satisfaction. Other research
concluded that part-time faculty’s global satisfaction may be higher, but they are less satisfied in
specific areas such as rewards and student and faculty interaction (Feldman, 1990; Miller &
Terborg, 1979).
This chapter discusses the findings of the data collected in the focus groups, interview
sessions, telephone interviews, debriefing sessions, and the field notes of the researcher. The
focus groups sessions and telephone interviews allowed part-time faculty to express their views
on their experiences as an adjunct. The quotes and discussion offered by the part-time faculty
and administrators provide the raw data for this research. At the end of each focus group, the
data was summarized and reviewed with the assistant moderator. For feedback and accuracy,
transcripts were sent to at least one participant of each group; the selection of the participant was
based on his or her willingness to read the transcripts and availability.
73

The study addressed six research questions concerning the part-time faculty at the three
community colleges studied. This chapter will discuss the findings of the research and address
the five questions.
1. What are the demographic characteristics and academic backgrounds of the part-time
faculty participants in the three community colleges studied?
2. What are the reasons for teaching part-time of the faculty participants in the three
community colleges studied?
3. What are the job satisfactions and dissatisfactions of the part-time faculty in the three
community colleges studied?
4. Are there differences in the perceptions or experiences of the community college
part-time faculty studied?
5. What are the institutional influences and policies affecting the use of part-time faculty
at the community colleges studied?
This report of findings first addresses the participants in the study. Next, the first
research question on the demographic and academic backgrounds of the 26 participants is
discussed. Secondly, the reasons for being part-time faculty are analyzed. The next section of
this chapter addresses the job satisfaction of the part-time faculty, the third research question.
This discussion is followed by the analysis of research question 4, which deals with the differing
perceptions and attitudes of the participants. Finally, the institutional influences are discussed.
Participants
Participants in the study were part-time faculty members and selected administrators at
one of the three institutions during the Spring and Fall Semesters of 2001. Throughout the
course of this chapter, the institutions studied will be identified by the following acronyms:
Urban Community College as UCC, Transfer Community College as TCC, and Rural
Community College as RCC. In addition, each participant was given a pseudonym, which is
used throughout the study in order to maintain anonymity. Each adjunct was contacted through a
memo in his or her campus mailbox. There were 26 adjunct faculty participants in the study.
Each institution employed a varying numbers of adjuncts. Furthermore, the institutions
could not give the exact number of adjuncts they employed because it changed semester to
semester. From the administrators’ estimations, UCC had approximately 300; TCC had
approximately 275; and RCC had approximately 100. Table 3 shows the number of participants
74

from each institution. Seven of the participants’ data were collected by telephone interviews,
with three from RCC and one from UCC.
Table 3: Focus Group and Telephone Interview Participants by Institution
Community College Number of Participants
Rural Community College 6
Transfer Community College 13
Urban Community College 7
Total Number of Participants 26
In addition to the focus groups and telephone interviews with adjuncts, one-on-one
interviews were conducted with administrators at all three institutions. Five administrators were
interviewed ranging from the Vice President of Academic Affairs to Department Chair. The
researcher attempted to interview one chief academic officer and one department or program
chair at each institution. A chief academic officer (CAO’s) was interviewed at each institution
and a program/department chair was interviewed at RCC and TCC.
The CAO’s were contacted by telephone, and a meeting was scheduled. During the
initial meeting with the CAO’s, the researcher requested a referral of a department or program
chair who dealt with adjuncts on a regular basis and who would be willing to do a one-on-one
interview. The researcher contacted the recommended individuals by telephone and e-mail and
set up a meeting time. One-on-one interviews with administrators were held in the
administrator’s personal office, and all sessions were tape-recorded. (Due to the limited number
of administrators, their demographic information is not included to ensure anonymity.)
Access, Location, and Time of Focus Groups
Gaining Access to Participants. The most difficult process of the study was contacting
adjuncts. Due to privacy issues, none of the institutions would disclose the names, telephone
numbers, or addresses of adjunct faculty members. Furthermore, there was no directory listing
the individual adjuncts due to their adjunct status. Therefore, the only means of contact were
through individual memos placed in the mailboxes of part-time faculty and flyers posted on
faculty information boards. The memos were placed in adjuncts’ mailboxes one to two weeks
75

prior to a focus group, and adjuncts were instructed to contact the researcher through a toll-free
telephone number or by e-mail to reserve a place in the focus group. The memos also informed
the participants that a $50 gift certificate would be awarded to a participant at each focus group.
Follow-up telephone calls and e-mails were sent to interested participants to verify attendance at
each group.
Location of Focus Groups. Each institution provided a conference room on the selected
campus to hold the focus groups. All the rooms provided a comfortable and relaxed atmosphere
for the sessions. The following is a short description of each.
TCC’s conference room was located in the Student Union in one of the student affairs’
areas. It provided a convenient, central place to meet although some adjuncts had a little
difficulty finding the room since it was upstairs, away from the main student area. The
researcher posted signs at several key areas to provide directions to the room. The room had two
entrances on opposite ends of the room as well as a large window on one wall of the room that
overlooked a hallway. The large conference table sat approximately 10 to 12 individuals. Since
the table and chairs were the only furniture in the room. The researcher brought in a small table
for the food.
UCC’s conference room was located in the administration building. Due to extensive
renovations on campus near the building, several of the adjuncts found it difficult to park. Signs
were posted at all entrances directing the adjuncts to the room, and they had no difficulty in
locating it. The room had a large conference table that sat approximately 10 people. There were
two small windows that looked out onto the street on one side of the room. There was also a
small cabinet along one wall that provided an ideal location for the food and snacks.
RCC’s conference room was in the Student Union also. The researcher had some
concern initially because it was located next to the office of the Vice President for Academic
Affairs; however, the meetings were held in the evenings when the office was closed.
Furthermore, none of the adjuncts had a problem with the meeting place. Being a smaller
campus, it was easy to locate the room, and parking was plentiful. This conference room was the
largest and may have doubled at times as a small classroom. There were two entrances, one
from the hallway and one from the administrator’s office. There were blackboards on two
separate walls, and the conference table could hold approximately 15 people. The room also had
a small table along the entrance wall that was used for the food.
76

Times for Focus Groups. Focus groups’ times were set initially for evening hours at the
institutions. On the last round of focus groups, the researcher included a mid-afternoon meeting
time to accommodate those who could not make the evening slots and to improve participation.
The afternoon sessions were held at TCC and UCC. RCC had no responses to the afternoon
meeting time.
The original focus group sessions were scheduled in April of 2001 with some success.
The first focus group, held at TCC, had six participants (the largest group of the study). The
remaining groups consisted of one to three individuals. Due to limited participation in the
Spring of 2001, the researcher scheduled a second round of focus groups at all three institutions
in the Fall of 2001. The original Fall 2001 groups at TCC and UCC were scheduled to meet the
week of the September 11 th tragedy, so the researcher had to cancel the groups and reschedule.
Due to the enormity of the 9-11 incidents, additional sessions were delayed for one month, and
the remaining sessions were held in October of 2001.
Numerous electronic mails (e-mails) and telephone calls were received from adjuncts
who were very interested in participating in the study, but they were unable to accommodate the
sessions into their schedule. The reasons given for not attending included conflict with a class,
difficulty in finding a baby-sitter, and lack of desire to be on campus other than on a scheduled
class day. Therefore, the researcher offered any adjunct, who was interested in participating in
the study but was unable to attend, the opportunity to do a telephone interview.
Demographic Characteristics and Academic Backgrounds
Research Question 1: What are the demographic characteristics and academic backgrounds of
the part-time faculty participants in the three community colleges studied?
The first research question addressed the demographic characteristics and academic
backgrounds of the part-time faculty in the three community colleges studied. In addition to the
interviews and focus groups, each participant was given a short demographic survey (see
Appendix J) that was completed before the interview began. Further information on the
demographics and academic background was culled from the transcripts of the focus groups and
interviews. The following is a breakdown of the information.
Age
The ages ranged from 27 to over 66. Fifty percent of the participants were between the
ages of 46 and 60. The remainder of adjuncts was dispersed with 23% in the 45 or below
77

categories and 23% in the 61 and above categories. One participant did not give his/her age.
Gender
There were 10 male and 16 female participants. Although with the small number of
participants in the study makes it difficult to generalize, the gender of the participants was much
like previous studies in the literature, with more females than males.
Ethnicity
Twenty of the 26 participants (77%) were Caucasians. The remaining six included the
following: one African American, one Hispanic, and four undesignated. These findings are also
similar to the research literature, where minority groups are not well represented.
Marital status was not discussed in the interviews or the survey and is not included in this
study. Table 4 shows the break down of age by ethnicity and gender.
Table 4: Ages of Participants by Ethnicity and Gender
Caucasian
African
American Hispanic Undesignated Totals
Age Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women
26-30 1 1
31-35 1 1 2
41-45 2 1 3
46-50 3 2 1 6
51-55 1 4 5
56-60 2 2
61-65 1 1 2
66+ 2 1 1 4
Unknown 1 1
Totals 7 13 0 1 1 0 2 2 26
Educational Level
Pursuant to the state of Florida policy, which follows the Southern Association of
Colleges and Schools’ (SACS) rules for accreditation, the minimum requirement for an
individual to teach is a Master’s degree with 18 hours in the subject field. The educational levels
of the participants were the following: two were beginning their Master’s work; 17 had obtained
78

their Master’s degree; two had completed all of their doctoral work except the dissertation; five
had doctoral degrees. The areas of study in which participants had degrees are shown in Table 5.
Table 5: Areas of Study for Bachelor’s, Master’s, and Doctoral Degrees of
Participants
BACHELOR’S
Accounting
Aeronautical Science
African and American Literature
Criminal Justice
Elementary Education
English Literature
German and Economics
History
Industrial Technology
Journalism
Liberal Studies Degree
Mathematics Education
Political Science
Theatre
MASTER’S
Counseling & Psychology
Criminal Justice
Curriculum
Dramatic Literature
English Education
English Literature
ESOL
History
Mathematics Education
MBA
Political Science
Pursuing Aeronautical Science
Reading
Social Science Education
Sociology
Theatre
79
DOCTORATE
Anthropology
Organizational Communication
Psychology
Zoology
Pursuing Education
One adjunct was currently pursuing an education doctorate. Interestingly, only one other
adjunct expressed the desire to return to school and pursue a Ph.D. Rita, from RCC, was in the
process of obtaining a psychology certification in order to teach psychology at the college level.
She also wanted to pursue her Ph.D. in psychology. “The education helps anyway if I go that
route, so I will have more education in my life. I have not stopped. There will be more.”
A number of the adjuncts discussed why they did not want to pursue a doctoral degree.
Amy, from RCC, felt that she was too old (57) to try to go back and get her degree.
Furthermore, she felt it was unnecessary to have a Ph.D. to teach survey history courses. Lori,
another RCC adjunct, was at the ABD (all but dissertation) stage of her doctoral work and
decided “it wasn’t what I wanted.”
At UCC, Ray, a professional writer, did not want to pursue a Ph.D. because teaching was
not the focus of his career. “I have a lot of ego invested…[in] being a writer, so that is where my

career is. So my career is not related to certain status in teaching, [and] that is why I chose not to
go for a Ph.D.”
Brad, a TCC adjunct, understood that many places required a doctorate to teach full-time,
but money and the time to do a dissertation were major discouraging factors for him.
I do not want to spend the money to pursue a doctorate degree, and I don’t want to write
a dissertation…I don’t want to take that two years or three years to write something that
thick. I mean if somebody hires me as a consultant and I write a report, they are going to
pay me anywhere from $100-$200 an hour to write that report or whatever. If I [have] to
write something like that as a doctoral candidate, I’m paying $600 an hour. So I can’t
justify the expense, and that is part of the reason why I got the CPA, [be]cause in a lot of
places that is as good as having the doctoral degree.
Finally, Jean, another TCC adjunct, felt life was too short to go back for a Ph.D. Even
though she had been encouraged repeatedly by her superiors to continue her graduate work, she
could not justify it.
I’ve always been of the opinion that life is too short for that kind of entrapment….I [had
someone] here tell me one time…’you know you really need to get your Ph.D. If you
had your Ph.D.,’ and I said, ‘if I had my Ph.D., you would be burying me.’ Life is way
too short; especially in my area [theatre]…it’s a conundrum.
Fields of Study
The subject fields taught by the participants were the following: six English, six
mathematics, one humanities, one history, two sciences, two business, one education, eight
social sciences, and six remedial level classes including reading, mathematics and ESOL
(English as a second language). There are more than 26 fields represented because several
adjuncts taught more than one subject. Table 6 shows the break down of subject taught by
gender and degree level.
Work Experience
According to the 1998 NSOPF, the mean number of years working as an adjunct was 9
years, and full-time faculty had been in their teaching position an average of 16 years (Berger et
al., 2002). Of the 26 participants, 24 reported their years of adjunct work experience, with a
combined 170 years of experience. The average number of years as an adjunct was eight. The
mode was one year, and the median was five years. Furthermore, three of the adjuncts were in
80

Table 6: Subjects Participants Taught by Degree Level and Gender
Some Graduate Completed
Doctoral
Degree Work Master's ABD Degree
Subject Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women
Business 1 1
Education 1
Engineering 1
English 1 5
History 1
Humanities 1
Math 1
Science 1
Social Science 1 3 2 2
Remedial 2
Unknown 2 1
ESL 1
Math 1 1 1
Reading 1 1
their first semester of teaching, and five had taught for 15 or more years. Table 7 shows the
break down of years teaching as an adjunct by gender and degree level.
The job situations were diverse among the 26 adjuncts. Eleven of the participants had
only the adjunct job as a paying position. Of these 11, two were retired, one was a full-time
Master’s student, one was a Doctoral student and full-time mom, and one was a full-time mom.
Nine of the participants held full-time jobs in the following positions: administrator,
CPA consultant, education counselor, engineering and manufacturing, management analyst,
professional writer, secondary school teacher, and workforce counselor. In addition to a full-
time job and adjunct position, one adjunct was working on her Master’s degree, and two had
additional part-times jobs, one with a local high school and the other teaching part-time at
another institution.
The remaining six individuals, whose main job was part-time teaching, also worked
additional part-time jobs. Three of the adjuncts working were “freeway fliers” (Gappa & Leslie,
1993, p. 48); they held positions as adjunct faculty at another institution. Two other adjuncts
81

held part-time positions outside of the academic arena. Finally, one individual worked half-time
with a local high school and ran a production company.
Table 7: Numbers of Years as Adjunct by Degree Level and Gender
Degree
Some Graduate
Work
Completed
Master's ABD
82
Doctoral
Degree
# years as
Adjunct Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women
Unknown 1 1
1st semester 1 1 1
1 2 1 1 1
3 3
4
5 1 1 1
6 1
7 1 1 1
8 1
15 1
17 1
18 1
26 1
30 1
There was a definite mix of job experience among the 26 participants. Furthermore,
almost all adjuncts seemed to have additional outlets, whether personal interests, schooling, or
another part-time job that made for very busy schedules.
Career Aspirations
Full-Time Faculty. According to the 1998 NSOPF, 42% of two-year part-time faculty
aspired to full-time positions, while 58% preferred to work part-time (Berger et al., 2002).
Several of the adjuncts aspired to teach full-time at the community college. At RCC, Rita and
Amy were very interested in full-time, as well as Jen who aspired to teach and then go into
administration. Tina wanted to find a position as full-time teacher in the future, but at the time
of the interview, she was very content working part-time and spending time with her family.

At TCC, several of the adjuncts wanted to teach full-time; however, there were several
reasons why they were not in full-time positions. Jean noted, “If TCC had a full time position, I
would apply for it, but the fact of the matter is, there haven’t been any in my field in all the time
that I’ve been here.” Hanna, a remedial specialist, was looking for full-time work also. “I
interviewed for a position here [at TCC]. It went to somebody who had been here for 14 years,
and that is the continuing story here. It is very, very hard to get on.”
Lisa and Eden, who were employed full-time, were teaching as adjuncts to try to get a
“foot in the door.”
“[H]ere at this [community college] you basically have to do it for a while. [You] have
to get to know the faculty before you can go for full-time position, and really full-time
positions are only offered when someone retires…But I’ve known where I want to be.
Once I start having a family, I know that I wanted to be teaching, so I’ve been working
towards this for a long time…I’ve been around for about five years, and I know a lot of
faculty around here. Even though I haven’t been …adjunct teaching…a lot of classes, I
know the faculty because I’ve been working here for a while, so hopefully [it will help in
the search committees]. (Lisa, TCC)
I’m too old to teach high school. I might blow a fuse! My goal is to eventually teach
full-time at a community college. I really wanted my Master’s, and I decided teaching
during that time would be good experience also. (Eden, TCC)
It was apparently rather difficult to obtain a full-time position at TCC, as Lisa, Jean and Hanna’s
comments indicated.
Reba, a Ph.D., wanted to teach full-time because she wanted to work at the community
college, and she loved her subject field, anthropology.
I have an emotional kind of feeling for community college. I would love to teach fulltime
at a community college. I don’t care about training the next generation of
anthropologists. There are enough schools that are graduating enough of us who are
going to have trouble finding a job like I did. It’s the subject. It’s the feel. It’s the
awareness that I want to be able to share.
At UCC, only two instructors directly expressed a desire to teach full-time. Suzi was
looking for job security and benefits. “I’d like to be able to work here full-time, but with some
sense of security or some perks in terms of just even Medicare coverage or something, but I
guess I can’t get it in an adjunct position they tell me.”
Ellie had been teaching part-time at UCC for several years because of her family
obligations. She was planning on applying for a full-time position upon the next opening, which
83

she believed would be within the next year due to a number of faculty retirements. She felt she
had paid her dues and because of her seniority as an adjunct, she would be next in line for a full-
time position.
People are getting ready for retirement, and I’ve been here long enough that I’ve
watched. When I was at the back of the line, I didn’t even try for a position. But now I
have some seniority…but I feel like it in the next year I probably will.
Continue as part-time. Several of the adjuncts were very happy in their role as a part-
time instructor, and they were not planning on changing their status. Lori (RCC) had no career
aspirations beyond the part-time instructor. Dave (UCC) planned on continuing teaching part-
time even after retiring from his full-time job. Jill (UCC), who had been an adjunct for 15 years,
noted below her reasons for not wanting more than part-time work:
I’ve wanted at times to be a full-time teacher, but it just didn’t work out, so, there you
go…If I were…offered a full-time position right now, I would say no, but it’s just
because of my age. You need someone younger. You need a younger person…I would
certainly consider it, but I wouldn’t take it. I’m very flattered by the whole thing, but
no…it’s more than I want to do at this point.
Other Aspirations. For those who had career aspirations other than being a community
college instructor, there were a variety of directions that the participants were headed. Brad
(TCC), who was almost 48, was doing what he wanted to do with his career in consulting. “I
work out of my home; I usually have one big contract and three or four little clients at any given
time. I make $50,000 plus a year and work three days a week. So, I’m happy right now.”
Although Pam (TCC) loved teaching, her dream was to be a writer of children’s books.
She stated, “Teaching was always a means to an end for me, and writing is the thing I love to
do.” Therefore, she had no desire to teach full-time and had every intention of dropping her
part-time position if her writing career “took off.”
Cara, also at TCC, had originally wanted to be a full-time professor, but when the
position was initially unavailable, she began to branch out in other areas. At the time of the
interview, she did not want to give up her outside interests to teach full-time. “I think probably
now I wouldn’t go full-time…[be]cause I have a lot of other irons in the fire. Even though when
I’m teaching four classes, I literally am a full-time employee you know.”
84

Geographic Mobility. Many of the adjuncts were not geographically mobile. Whether
bound to the area by their spouse or family or by personal reasons, they felt they could not leave.
These findings are comparable to the research literature.
The most prevalent reason adjuncts had for not wanting to leave their area was due to
family constraints. Jean (TCC) was geographically bound due to her husband’s job, while
Hanna (TCC), whose husband also taught as an adjunct, wanted to stay because her son was in
school in the area. Hanna also noted that she was tied into a lease, as well as the fact that she
and her husband had spent thousands of dollars to relocate from their previous jobs.
Rita (RCC) had extended family living with her including her adult daughter and
grandchild, and she did not want to uproot them. “So for me to uproot, it would be to uproot her,
and at this point she is a full-time student at a community college. So at this point to uproot and
move is not a good thing; so no, I’m not mobile.”
Eden (TCC), who was married with a child, also wanted to stay in Florida due to family.
“I’m at the age where family makes a big difference. No, I don’t think I will leave.”
Lisa, a full-time employee at TCC as well as a CPA, was geographically bound due to
her husband’s business. She also had family in the area. Although her goal was to teach full-
time at TCC, she was in the position to work full-time in business because of her credentials.
“My education is so diverse that I don’t…have to have a full-time faculty position…I don’t have
to be a teacher. I can be a CPA at a public firm. So I’m not moving anywhere right now.”
Ellie, at UCC, was also place bound due to her family. “[N]o, we are not going to move.
If I had to, I would look for employment here in town, elsewhere from the junior college
…Also, we have a lot of campuses, so I could go to the other campuses if I had to.”
Although Amy (RCC) had no immediate family in the area, she had lived in her area for
25 years and felt a place of permanence.
My house is going to be paid off this month, and when you’re in that situation, you feel
like you’re permanent, and yeah, I like living out in the country. I don’t think I could
find any place else where I could have my 8 cats, and they would be perfectly safe, so
things like that.
A few of the adjuncts expressed interest in moving if the position or timing was right for
them and their family. Cara was not interested in teaching full-time at TCC, but if she decided to
pursue a full-time teaching job, she would definitely move. Jen (RCC) was also open to moving.
85

“I’ve discussed [moving] with my husband. Yes, when the time comes and the right position
comes, we would leave.”
Pete (TCC) was prepared to move wherever the job took him either as a consultant or a
full-time teacher, but he still had family considerations.
I’m applying for [various] jobs and if something lucrative comes up, you know in
Cincinnati or up North somewhere, I will probably go…I will have to figure out how to
get my daughter through her senior year down here, and, we’ll see what comes up in [this
city]. But, you know, it scares me [be]cause there are a lot of people who came down
here to go to school, and they’re here for a long time, and I don’t want to be here for a
long time.
As with the research literature, geographic mobility did seem to have an effect on the
pursuit of full-time positions by those interviewed. Also, women appeared to be more bound
geographically than their male counterparts. Family ties seemed to have the biggest influence on
adjuncts not wanting to move.
Reasons for Teaching Part-time
Research Question 2: What are the reasons for teaching part-time of the faculty participants in
the three community colleges studied?
According to the literature, there were 10 main areas that motivated part-time faculty to
teach. These areas include the following: love of teaching, employed full-time outside of
community college teaching, seeking a full-time position, desired experience, flexibility and
autonomy, income, keeping current in the profession, prestige, students, and personal
satisfaction.
The second research question addressed the reasons the adjuncts taught part-time in the
three community colleges studied. There were a variety of reasons given by the participants on
why they chose to teach part-time. The next section will discuss their responses including the
above reasons from the literature as well as some reasons not mentioned directly in the literature
including only wanting part-time work and enjoying the community feeling working at the
college gave.
Love of Teaching
At some point in the discussions, the majority of the adjuncts expressed how much they
liked to teach. This was a strong motivating factor for teaching as an adjunct and coincides with
the research literature.
86

Brad (TCC) found that teaching gave him the ability to positively influence someone’s
life. “Not too many things you can do that give you that opportunity.” Lisa (TCC) found
inspiration in teaching and helping to students to learn something new.
Although Hanna (TCC) did not enjoy being an adjunct, she loved teaching, and teaching
adjunct got her into the classroom. Reba (TCC) also saw teaching part-time as a way to get into
the classroom and do what she loves—teaching her subject. “I do like the chance it gives me to
expose students to my field.”
A number of the adjuncts discussed the fact that they loved to teach. Jen (RCC)
expressed how much she enjoyed the teaching aspect. Jean (TCC) also enjoyed teaching. “I am
delighted with what I teach, and I enjoy it; and that is what makes me do it.” Dan, a history
adjunct at TCC, also enjoyed teaching. “I enjoy the subject…Period…I’m having fun.”
Probably the most exuberant proponent of teaching was Rita (RCC). She taught part-
time in the evenings and wanted to become a full-time instructor.
…after my first semester it was like “wow, this is really fun.” I really, really enjoyed it,
and I’ve been teaching ever since, everything that they can give me. If I can fit it into my
schedule, I’m teaching it. I really get a kick out of being up front in a classroom and
explaining stuff, and I have a good time. I’m a good teacher. You should be in my class.
I have a lot of fun in my class; I get a lot of student participation, that kind of thing. And
I just kind of got hooked…on teaching…[be]cause I love it. I really, really love being in
the classroom.
Overall, love of teaching was one of the strongest motivating factors found in this study.
Also, it seemed to be the main motivation for continuing as an adjunct.
Employed Full-time Outside of Community College Teaching
In the research, many part-time faculty were employed full-time in another job. In this
study, nine of the adjuncts had a full-time position, but only two adjuncts gave it as a reason for
teaching part-time. Eden (TCC) noted, “I’m a full-time [job location withheld] worker, and I do
need to keep my job.” Dave (UCC) was working full-time in the field he taught. Although he
had no interest in a full-time teaching position, he did state that he would continue teaching as an
adjunct even after he retired from his full-time position.
Seeking Full-time Position
Several adjuncts were looking for full-time positions but were unsuccessful in finding
one. Ellie (UCC) was a full-time teacher before she had children. With her children being older,
87

she felt free to work full-time again, and she was going to apply to the next full-time position
that opened up in her department.
Amy (RCC) had been trying to get a full-time position for several years. In her field of
history, the positions almost always went to candidates with doctorates; however, she did not
want to pursue a doctoral degree at her stage in life.
Hanna and Reba, both adjuncts at TCC, were seeking full-time positions as well, and
both wanted to be at the college level. Reba, who holds a doctorate, could also work at the
university level, but she preferred community colleges. Hanna, however, was limited to
community college because her field of expertise was in developmental and remedial studies.
“[Universities] don’t usually have a place for [remedial specialists] like me. I’m pretty much
community college, my niche.”
Reba (TCC), Amy (RCC), and Hanna (TCC) all expressed their concern and
disappointment at how difficult it was to obtain a full-time position. Their experience is another
example that teaching part-time may not be the “foot in the door” for which some adjuncts hope.
Interestingly, Lisa noted the difficulty of breaking into a faculty position at TCC, and she
believed that you had to be an adjunct in order to move into full-time teaching.
I’ve seen the pattern around here. You [have to] be an adjunct for a while… I’ve been
around here for about 5 years, and I know a lot of the faculty around here. Even though I
haven’t been…adjunct teaching a lot, I know the faculty because I’ve been working here
a while. So hopefully that will be a [benefit].
According to the adjuncts and administrators at TCC, most full-time faculty came from the ranks
of the adjuncts.
Desired Experience
Some of the adjuncts were not interested in teaching full-time at the time of the
interview; however, they wanted to teach full-time in the future. Their reason for teaching part-
time now was to gain experience for future job opportunities. Jen (RCC) stated, “[I am] hoping
to be a full-time teacher, so [I am] trying to get all the experience I can under my belt.”
Two of the participants, Tim (RCC) and Eden (TCC), were working on their Master’s
degree and felt that teaching part-time provided excellent experience. It also provided them with
additional income while pursuing their educational goals.
I need to do something on my résumé…Well, I just started my Master’s degree and
didn’t want to do it at the same time as work[ing] full time because I can’t focus…and I
88

want to [put] my “best foot forward,” if you will… I just teach two classes and do the
Master’s program. (Tim, RCC)
The State cancelled this student waiver thing and still won’t pay for school [any] more.
So I decided to get a part-time job in teaching,…[and] I applied to TCC as an adjunct
instructor. (Eden, TCC)
Wanted Only Part-time
Several adjuncts desired only a part-time position, and their reasons varied as to why they
wished for just part-time work. Tim (RCC) found the job very convenient for him while he was
working on his Master’s. Lori (RCC) did not want to teach full-time any longer, and she was
financially able to drop to part-time due to her husband’s income. Tina (RCC) chose to teach
part-time in order to spend more time with her husband and three daughters.
Nancy (TCC) was a retired high school teacher who taught in a private school for 33
years. She found part-time teaching a refreshing change and an enjoyable experience.
I just don’t want to [teach full-time]. I’m tired frankly. I taught a long time, as I said, 33
years, and I also did the anchor club at my school for 15 years…when you teach in a high
school, it is a very draining thing because you are involved in so many extracurricular
things, whereas on campus in a college it’s not exactly that same situation.
In addition to Nancy (TCC), Chris (UCC) was also retired after 30 plus years at the community
college and only wanted to teach part-time. Retirees such as Chris and Nancy bring many years
of expertise and often excellent pedagogical skills to the classroom.
Flexibility and Autonomy
From the institutional perspective, the administrators acknowledged that flexibility was a
key motivator for adjuncts. Flexibility was another reason given by many of the adjuncts for
teaching part-time, and it was a strong motivating factor for various reasons. Part-time teaching
allowed adjuncts to spend more time with their family.
This aspect is the most satisfying part of being an adjunct for me. I have much more
personal free time and more time with my daughters and husband. I am also more able to
help my husband in his business…It’s part-time and flexible, and that’s why I continue
doing [adjunct], but I feel its taking unfair advantage. (Tina, RCC)
It isn’t full-time, so I have a great amount of time to spend as I wish…I also get to spend
time with my grandson who was born in March. (Lori, RCC)
89

Some found the flexibility allowed them to come and go as they pleased, choose to
participate as much or as little as they wished, and gave them greater freedom overall as the
statements below show.
Probably the flexibility of the schedule coming and going. You don’t have any classes,
you don’t have to be there. (Jen, RCC)
That’s one big advantage to being an adjunct, to get to say no. (Adam, TCC)
It is nice to have freedom to come and go…I like variety and I like flexibility, and I have
a lot of that. (Ellie, UCC)
I want more discretionary time. I want more time to do my thing and some stuff outside
of here. (Chris, UCC)
A number of the faculty had outside careers or interests, and working as an adjunct
provided greater independence to pursue their real love. For example, Cara (TCC) enjoyed part-
time because it allowed her to spend time on outside interests.
institutions.
In discussing flexibility, Pam (TCC) spoke of her friend who taught part-time at several
I want to say another thing about one advantage of being an adjunct, and I [am] speaking
of a friend of mine. [She] has a Ph.D. in dramatic [literature]...She was teaching 4 or 5
different places at different colleges. Why she does that instead of getting a full-time
job? Because she chooses her courses…I was given my choice… I’m doing exactly what
I want to do…teaching is just something I’ve found that I can do in order to make the
writing possible. So as soon as anything breaks, I’m out of here.
Ray (UCC) also liked the freedom the adjunct position gave him to pursue his career in
writing. Furthermore, he enjoyed the fact that he did not have to participate in other required
duties of full-time faculty:
It helps my independence… It helps me be a better writer…I like the freedom of being
an adjunct. I joke that I don’t have to go to meetings, and that is one of the payoffs I
really appreciate when somebody says, “Why don’t you apply for a full-time
position.”…I like not having to go to meetings. I really do. I like the idea that I’m
coming in, teaching my course, meeting with the students if they want to meet, and my
responsibility as far as …that goes…of being onsite, I’m done…so I like that a lot. (Ray,
UCC)
Another interesting example of the flexibility of being adjunct came from Jean (TCC), a
theatre instructor. Jean also ran a production company and taught half-time at a local high
90

school. One reason she found adjunct teaching desirable was because it was not the typical nine
to five job. “[I] cannot comprehend punching a clock. If anything ever could, that would cause
me to have hives I think…When I hear about State workers or people with regular jobs, they do
what they do all day long—oh my goodness.”
Along with flexibility, instructors enjoyed the autonomy that comes with being a college
teacher, such as Amy (RCC) who stated, “That’s the good part about doing this job is that you
are on your own, and you don’t answer to anybody.” Dave (UCC) found an added advantage of
being part-time was not being involved in the bureaucracy of the college.
No involvement in the politics of the bureaucracy, I just come in and teach my class and
leave…As any large organization, there are personality issues and office politics. I go
teach my class. I leave and am totally unencumbered by what’s happening at the
institution. It’s a very refreshing role to be in.
Income
In addition to providing greater flexibility, part-time teaching also provided income. Not
surprisingly, one of the strongest motivations for being an adjunct was the additional income,
whether it was their only income or it was a second or third job. Two main reasons were given
for the need for additional income. The first was to provide extra income for personal needs or
extra spending money. Pam (TCC) retired five years earlier and wanted extra money for
traveling. Rita (RCC) also sought out the job for extra spending money, but she found that she
truly loved to teach.
…I didn’t set out to be a teacher. That wasn’t my main goal, [I] just [wanted to] make a
little extra money… I didn’t know that I wanted to teach that bad except I knew I needed
a little extra money…I knew that they would pay me for teaching, and I knew that I had
the qualifications [be]cause I had a Master’s degree…it was just something that I was
[going to] check out and try [to] see how it would go. Mostly, I think, because I knew I
would get paid you know, and I really needed the extra money at the time. I really, really
needed some money, and so I thought what the heck, it can’t be that bad…I’m smart so
all I [have] to do is get a textbook. I can teach anything. Just give me a book; I can teach
it…Money helps. Money is good. It allows me to…[do the] things that I would struggle
to do with just a regular paycheck (Rita, RCC)
The second reason for the needed income was to provide some type of stability for those
whose other jobs may not provide a steady or established flow of income. Nancy (TCC), a
retired high school English teacher, had her pension from her private school, which was not in
the greatest shape due to market fluctuations.
91

I need the money…Because [of] my retirement [and] having been in private schools for
all these years, I don’t get a State check. My retirement is in the stock market, which is
currently shot to hell, as we all know. So I need this little extra money now, and that is
one reason that I’m doing it.
Ray (UCC) also found that the part-time teaching position provided for a much-needed
stability, since he was not always certain when he would be paid for his writing.
…it also gives me some stability to be able to budget certain income. As a freelance
writer one of the few things you can’t control is when somebody is going to pay you.
You can control how much work you do and how much you have [in] billables out, but
whether the magazine or newspaper choose actually to issue that check is totally
irrelevant, out of your control. So if I am an adjunct, I know that on a certain day I am
going to get a certain amount of money. So I can pay that bill on that date and take some
pressure off me.
Dan (TCC), who was in his second term as an adjunct, took a very interesting perspective
on why he believed individuals chose to work part-time at TCC. He felt that most perceived it as
a great second job for additional income, especially those pursuing doctoral degrees.
The few adjuncts that I even bothered to talk to, who work…for [company withheld] in
some fashion and they have no intention of ever working at TCC full-time, they are doing
this instead of working at McDonald’s. When I worked for [company name withheld],
there were people all around me who left at 5:00 p.m. They had to drive like crazy
[be]cause at 5:45 they had to be at [JC] Penney’s. They are going to be a sales clerk for
however long they stayed there in the Mall, a lot of them worked in those places. So it’s
a very common thing [in this town] for somebody to have a second job. Most of the
adjuncts I know of…[have] a second job that gives them extra money. [They are] not
really dependent on it. If they didn’t work [at TCC], they would work someplace else.
Or they are people in school trying to finish up whatever they are finishing and hoping
the heck they can finish it fast enough so they can get out of here.
Up-to-Date Knowledge and Real-life Input
The adjuncts discussed how teaching helped to keep their skills and knowledge current.
It also helped them to see the world from their students’ perspectives.
I like the fact that it forces me to stay up on a bunch of different disciplines…I like the
fact that I get a different perspective on things because I get students coming…from
different backgrounds, and they’re giving me their perspective…In a nutshell, all the
variety appeals to me (Brad, TCC)
…I enjoy discovery of the writing process…and [teaching] also keeps me honed on my
writing skills. (Ray, UCC)
92

The best thing I like about being an adjunct…the opportunity to get into new technology.
I don’t have that opportunity at [my full-time job]. We don’t have that kind of money.
(Bill, UCC)
The program keeps me in contact with others (my students primarily) in the
manufacturing arena. I am able to learn what others are doing to resolve common issues,
and we also tour different plants in our area as part of our program. (Dave, UCC)
Furthermore, they also enjoyed being able to bring real-life experience into the classroom
as Lisa pointed out in her interview. “I’ve been in public accounting, as far as a CFO position
and comptroller of corporations, and I enjoy teaching. I enjoy bringing all that real life to a
classroom.”
Prestige
As in the literature, many of the adjuncts felt a sense of prestige that came with the
position of college instructor. It was an ego and self-esteem boost for them. Rita, Jill, Suzi, and
Ellie’s comments express these feelings:
Students
I really get a kick out of being up front in a classroom and explaining stuff, and I have a
good time… So I continue to do it because it’s like an ego builder for me…it’s the selfesteem
kind of thing for me that I’m doing this, and the money is not bad either, so that’s
why I continue to stay… I’m well known in [my workplace] with all my coworkers…”Ms.
[name withheld] teaches college out here.” So I think it’s a self-esteem
booster, ego builder, a self-satisfaction that I’m doing something that I like. I get paid for
doing something I like to do, and I really, really do like to teach. I really do. (Rita,
RCC)
…I just enjoy the ego boost when I’m walking across campus and somebody says, “Hi
Mrs. [name withheld]. How are you doing?” I say, “I’m doing fine,” and they may have
been [students] two or three semesters ago. I just really like that, but that’s the sort of
thing I think that all teachers get after they’ve been on campus a while. (Jill, UCC)
So, it’s also got to do with…your self esteem. I think my self-esteem and ego [are] very
much evolved around the job. (Suzi, UCC)
I like the role…of junior college instructor. I mean, I think it is respected. It is a
professional position. I enjoy not only that it is a professional position but [also] that it is
perceived as that. (Ellie, UCC)
Although the literature states that adjuncts had lower job satisfaction when dealing with
students, the majority of the adjuncts in this study said working with the students was one of the
93

est parts of the job. The desire to work with students was an extremely strong motivating factor
expressed by the adjuncts.
point of view.
You know it can be inordinately rewarding, especially if you are a good communicator
and you like people. That’s what keeps me coming back…out of every fifty, there might
be those two again that keep you coming back. (Jean, TCC)
I like to teach [be]cause I like the students. There are some that are a pain, but…some of
the students are just really nice. There are some that are really here to learn, and they
kind of keep you going through the rough spots. (Cara, TCC)
I think that is really what makes a teacher is if you can find out what motivates your
student and find some way to communicate to that student so that you push that
motivation…I like the variety of students. (Brad, TCC)
Bob, a political science instructor at TCC, felt working with students gave him a unique
I do it because I am interested in the political development of the country, and I can see it
through the students. [I determine] what they consider important and then what I try to
do is give them back a feeling that, “although I understand what you are saying, there are
other things that you need to understand why these events took place,” sort of a maturing
type view of things. So there is interplay, and I enjoy that part as much as anything, not
just book learning but making sure that they understand things just didn’t happen here.
Antony & Valadez (1998) found that part-time faculty’s job satisfaction was lower than
full-time faculty in the area of students. Although there is no comparison in this study to full-
time faculty, the positive attitude towards students was one of the strongest motivating factors in
the interviews, which seems to contradict previous findings.
Community
All the participants felt that the community college provided a valuable educational
service. Furthermore, the community atmosphere provided by the community college was
another reason they chose to teach as adjuncts, as the comments below exemplify.
I just plain love [the] community college. I think it is the best thing going in the
educational world, and that is why I chose to work here so long. I could have retired 10
years ago, but I didn’t want to. I just think there are so many challenges because all these
ages of people. Kids still in high school taking credit bank courses to senior citizens and
everything in between, and from all the different backgrounds you can imagine, and it
just makes life interesting to work with those kinds of people…When I look at all those
different kinds of things, I really don’t want to throw in the towel. I just enjoy working
here. (Chris, UCC)
94

I think what I like the most about being an adjunct is being a part of this
community…this is kind of opening up another window professionally for me, and I
enjoy that very much…I like the atmosphere. (Nancy, TCC)
Personal Satisfaction
Many of the adjuncts expressed great personal satisfaction in working as an adjunct.
Jean (TCC) expressed it extremely well, “I come in, enjoy what I do, and I go. I do it out of
need, but I also do what I like. It is what I do.”
Tim (RCC) found that it provided a personal outlet as well, “Another reason, if I’m not
working, I’m just bored. I just want to go hang out with colleagues…I kind of like the idea of
being adjunct, which basically is separate from the full-time staff.”
Miscellaneous
Besides the above-mentioned reasons for teaching part-time, there were a variety of
miscellaneous reasons. Bill (UCC), an adjunct for over 18 years, enjoyed the variety of the
position. Dave (UCC), who had a full-time job, found that not being involved in the “politics”
was a good reason for staying on as an adjunct.
No involvement in the politics of the bureaucracy, I just come in and teach my class and
leave…As any large organization, there are personality issues and office politics. I go
teach my class. I leave and am totally unencumbered by what’s happening at the
institution. It’s a very refreshing role to be in.
One of the more interesting stories of why an individual chose to be an adjunct came
from Pete (TCC), a consultant. It provides a strong case for the advantages and effects of
mentoring.
…why I teach part time?…I have been doing [part-time teaching] for such a long time,
but I remember…I guess I was 19 years old, and I worked while I was going to college; I
worked at a TV station in Cincinnati as a cameraman…and the program director was a
college program director at WCET, and he taught part time at the University of
Cincinnati. Now I’m 19 and naive as can be, and I thought that was the coolest thing in
the world. I couldn’t imagine being such a professional as he and teaching part-time. I
just thought that was so great that he shared his wealth of knowledge about television and
broadcasting. He is dead now, and he was one of the pioneers in television. So, I went to
him, “What do you [have] to do to teach?” “Well you [have] to get a master’s degree.”
So I graduated from Northern Kentucky University, and I talked to him…I was still
working at the TV station, “Can you give me a year’s leave of absence so I can go get
my master’s degree so I can go teach part-time?” And he said, “Sure.” So I went to
Eastern Illinois University. [It] took me 11 months to get my master’s degree, and I
95

came back to the same TV station. Then I started teaching part time. I thought I was
cool. I was 23, 24 years old.
There were varied and often multiple reasons participants chose to teach part-time. Need
for income, love of teaching, and working with students were the three most strongly expressed
motivating factors. Furthermore, all participants expressed a strong commitment to teaching, as
well as a professional attitude towards their jobs at the institutions. In addition, these motivators
were similar to the research literature.
Job Satisfactions and Dissatisfactions
Research Question 3: What are the job satisfactions and dissatisfactions of the part-time faculty
participants in the three community colleges studied?
The third research question addressed job satisfactions and dissatisfactions of the part-
time faculty participants in the three community colleges studied. As Spector (1997) noted, job
satisfaction is important because of its positive and negative ramifications. Having a
comprehensive understanding of these ramifications helps the institutions to provide a better
employee environment and may help to improve productivity in part-time faculty as well as full-
time faculty.
In the course of the focus groups, questions were asked that addressed the satisfaction
levels of the adjuncts (See Appendix G1). Furthermore, in the discussion, the adjuncts addressed
several areas not specifically targeted by the questions.
In analyzing the data, satisfaction levels with the following topics were addressed by the
adjuncts: teaching; students; institutions; full-time faculty and other adjunct faculty; the
departments or program areas including the departmental level, support staff, physical facilities,
office hours and office space; compensation and benefits; recruitment, orientation, and
integration; evaluation; other job roles; and overall satisfaction.
Satisfaction with Teaching
Eleven of the 26 participants commented directly on their love of teaching and found
satisfaction in working with the students and at the institutions. At all three institutions,
satisfaction with teaching was evident by the adjuncts’ strong remarks on teaching. The
following excerpts are a few of the comments and discussions on teaching:
Well the teaching itself, I’m very satisfied with the teaching. (Jen, RCC)
96

I love teaching in general…Overall, I find college teaching to be very stimulating
intellectually…I love teaching college material and working with college students…I
love teaching! (Tina, RCC)
I’m here because I love to teach…And I don’t want to give up teaching, and I never knew
until a couple of years ago that teaching is something that I really love [be]cause I never
pursued an education degree…and I love it…I would rather be out here teaching school
any day than working…full-time [at her current job]…I just enjoy it so much, and I never
thought I would be a teacher… I’m here [be]cause I love to teach. (Rita, RCC)
I am totally delighted with [teaching]. I’ve had no complaints at all. (Dan, TCC)
I am delighted with what I teach, and I enjoy it, and that is what makes me do it. (Jean,
TCC)
…I love teaching. I really do. I love it and … I feel like [adjunct teaching] is a
wonderful thing for me to do to be able to keep my finger in [teaching]. (Nancy, TCC, a
retired high school teacher)
I enjoy what I’m doing. I love teaching, and I wish I could have done more in the past.
(Jill, UCC)
Among the participants, there was a strong desire to teach and a strong level of satisfaction that
came from teaching.
Satisfaction with Students
In the literature, studies showed that adjunct faculty found lower levels of satisfaction
with students. Although the findings of this study are limited in generalizability, this research
contradicts those findings. Overwhelmingly at all three institutions, the participants agreed that
one of the greatest job satisfactions as an adjunct was working with the students.
There were several reasons given for the greater satisfaction with working with students.
One was that they were more committed to their studies. Lori, a former middle school teacher,
noted, “I love this job. I feel like a teacher again instead of a referee. The students are friendly,
but respectful, and appreciative of the assistance I can give them.”
Another reason adjuncts found working with students satisfying was greater intellectual
stimulation; the students were ready to learn, as with Tina (RCC).
I like the intellectual stimulation of college teaching and absolutely love working with
my students. Definitely, I like teaching the college students and working with adults…I
truly enjoy students, especially in my night class. We have wonderful discussions, and
they are so eager to learn. I feel that I am really making a difference for many of them.
97

Others, such as Pete, Jill, and Pam, found establishing relationships and rapport with
students rewarding.
I enjoy the students, and I have a great rapport with them, and I guess that is what keeps
me coming back. (Pete, TCC)
I really enjoy very much establishing relationships with students and rapport with the
students. (Jill, UCC)
I enjoy seeing the progress made with the students… When they realize that there is a
whole world out there beyond their little egos, it’s just remarkable, and they all don’t get
it, but some of them are starting too, and that is the fun of teaching. It is a calling, you
know, more than a profession. It is like a minister doesn’t count how much money he is
getting, and if he does, he’s not a really good minister. (Pam, TCC)
Even for adjuncts who were not satisfied with other aspects of the part-time position,
they found working with students very rewarding. Suzi (UCC), who was dissatisfied with being
only part-time, is an example of the commitment to the students. “I think the whole saving grace
of this place is really the students…I’m very, very focused on those students and what happens
outside of that is very secondary to me.”
Interestingly, the adjuncts who had the opportunity to teach both day and night classes
discussed a distinct difference in the students. Hanna (TCC) acknowledged, “This is my first
day class, and the students are 180 degrees different to me…The night classes are more
dedicated…They are more serious too.” The consensus from those who had experienced
teaching both day and night students was that evening students were usually more motivated and
mature. Brad (TCC) found a very noticeable difference also.
…my experience with community college has been, particularly in the evening, it has
been [the] older student. A student that is either going back to school [be]cause they’re
changing careers,…or personal situations have changed and they [have] to do something
about their life or something. But I find that a community college student is somebody
that has screwed around in high school and now they can’t get into a [university] or
whatever, so the only route they’ve got now is community college. On a whole, I find
the community college student usually highly motivated…The day students tend to be
younger. They tend to be 18, 19, 20ish. Some of them are good because they…can’t get
into a university…for whatever reason…so they’re motivated, but not quite as much as
the night student. Usually the night student is a little bit older [and] has been out there
working for a while. They have banged around. They know what it takes to get
something done, and they taught themselves how to get something done… I call them
adults, these people who have been working for a while. They’re in their late 20’s or
early 30’s – even in their 40’s. They’ve been working, and when their boss gives them
an assignment, they [have] a deadline to meet. And they go and meet that
98

deadline…They know how to ask questions to meet that deadline, and they just know
how to get the job done. You give that same assignment to your traditional college kid,
and they will yap and moan and groan about how much work it is and how much effort it
is, and they will spend more time yapping than they will getting it done. And it is only
[be]cause they haven’t been out there yet. You can pick out the college students, even
the ones that had to work through high school from the ones that just kind of coasted
along, and mommy and daddy gave them everything.
The majority of the participants had only positive comments to make about the students.
Even those who had negative comments, attributed the behaviors to only a few students, but they
truly enjoyed working with the students as a whole.
Satisfaction with the Institution
The level of satisfaction varied somewhat with teaching at the institutions. Issues with
the institutions usually derived from wanting more classes or being paid more, as Lori (RCC)
expressed in her comment below:
I would like to teach more than just one class, but [I] am aware that as an adjunct, I am
filling a slot where needed, and they only needed me for one class this semester.”
However, most of the adjuncts enjoyed the community college environment as the following
quotes indicate:
I’m real satisfied with [teaching at the institution]. I love that. (Rita, RCC)
I like teaching here…It [TCC] probably has been about my best experience as an adjunct.
(Brad, TCC)
I’m satisfied. I mean I’ve been here [at TCC] for a long time. I’ve gotten to know a lot
of people around here. It’s a nice working environment around here. It really is as
compared to other jobs that I’ve had. (Lisa, TCC)
I also like the environment of the teaching staff. I don’t think I would like [the
university’s] so much; I think that there [they are] more maybe snobbish. There is more
academic backbiting kind of thing. [TCC] is a big happy family, and I enjoy that. (Pam,
TCC)
I think [UCC is] really a pleasant place to work actually. (Suzi, UCC)
I think…UCC is very protective of teachers generally in that they don’t have to take guff
[referring to disruptive students]. (Jill, UCC)
In working for the community college, Hanna (TCC) had a unique outlook. She had
almost 13 years of teaching full-time at community colleges, and she had taught part-time at
99

two-year institutions before she began her career as a full-time instructor. Although her goal was
to find a full-time position and she was unhappy with not being able to find one at TCC, she still
found the institution an enjoyable place to work.
People [at TCC] are wonderful. The atmosphere is very good…People are professional
and cordial and friendly, and I’ve been in other institutions where they are not. I have
been at institutions where they had unions…and I’d run into situations where people say,
“that is not my job.” I much prefer this kind of setting where the focus is on the student
and how can we help them do better…This is a clean campus…well kept, and they take
pride in appearances, and there are other campuses that don’t. And so all that adds up to
job satisfaction for me…But I guess my point is that I’m the kind of person that will
sacrifice salary to get a place that is friendly and compatible, and I feel we’re all working
together for the student. And that’s what I did.
Dave (UCC), who was employed full-time outside of academia, enjoyed teaching at the
institution because he did not have to get involved.
No involvement in the politics of the bureaucracy, I just come in and teach my class and
leave…As any large organization, there are personality issues and office politics. I go
teach my class. I leave and am totally unencumbered by what’s happening at the
institution. It’s a very refreshing role to be in.
Several of the TCC adjuncts taught at other institutions in the area, mostly four-year
schools, and they believed there was a difference in how adjuncts were treated between the two-
and four-year institutions. Reba (TCC) expressed this sentiment.
First of all, I make more [money] at [the four-year institution]. Second, I feel as though
I’m treated more like a professional. If I wanted to go to a professional meeting, I have a
TA that can handle my classes…if I’m out sick, I’m out sick. We don’t get docked. We
don’t have to find a substitute…but not here…not only do they pay us so little, but they
nickel and dime us with everything else.
The “nickel and dime” point Reba was expressing pertained to the rules for substituting.
If an adjunct had to miss a class, all three institutions required that a substitute be found for the
class, and the adjuncts were docked at an hourly rate for the missed class; the hourly rate was set
by the institution. Like Reba, several adjuncts commented that such treatment made them feel
like hourly workers instead of professionals with graduate degrees. Nonetheless, Reba enjoyed
working at the community college. It was her preference, but her dissatisfaction derived from
her perception that she was being treated unprofessionally, especially in relationship to how she
was treated at the four-year institution.
100

Many of the adjuncts were satisfied with their institution. They were comfortable with
the working environment, and they felt that the community college arena was a good place to
work.
Satisfaction with Full-Time Faculty and Other Adjuncts
In discussing satisfaction with the full-time faculty, most of the comments were positive.
Those who had established associations with adjuncts were positive also, but the adjunct-to-
adjunct relationships were scarce.
Full-Time Faculty. Instructors who worked during the day had significantly more
contact with full-time faculty members than those who worked in the evenings. Almost all of the
participants had positive input on full-time faculty. Tim (RCC) and Lisa (TCC) discussed how
helpful full-time faculty were in answering their questions. Suzi (UCC) relied heavily on a full-
time faculty member. “I have one member of the faculty, who is full-time, and she’s been really
helpful, but otherwise I would be totally lost.”
There was a consensus among most of the adjuncts that they were treated respectfully by
the full-time faculty, as the statements below point out:
I’ve never had any problems with full-time faculty. They’ve all treated me very nice,
with respect and courtesy. (Jen, RCC)
Everyone is friendly and helpful to one another without regard to whether full- or parttime,
tenured, adjunct or whatever. (Lori, RCC)
The faculty members…have been so warm and so complimentary…and they make me
feel very much appreciated and included, and I don’t get any of this…”we’re above what
you do.” It’s always that we are colleagues, and they seem interested in what I’m doing
and in my opinion. (Nancy, TCC)
Full-time faculty are wonderful. My immediate supervisors are wonderful… I like the
people I work with. I mean, it is always pleasant to talk to other folks, compare
notes…The full-time faculty, especially if you have been here long enough that they
know you, they treat you well. Sometimes I can almost delude myself into feeling that
I’m almost a professional doing it. (Reba, TCC)
I think instructors work together to develop an almost unwritten policy. I think that
people make informal group decisions if they’re teaching the same thing. You talk about
what textbooks you’re using, when you’re testing, or what approach to take on
something. We collaborate…I’m there during the daytime. I have a nice relationship
with the full-time staff. (Ellie, UCC)
101

Although the comments were mostly positive towards full-time faculty, a few adjuncts,
especially those teaching nights, noted that interaction with full-time instructors was often
limited. Rita (RCC) observed, “There is just not an opportunity for us to get together because
when I come out here at night, I go straight to the classroom, and I teach my class.” Brad (TCC)
is another example of this sentiment.
Full-time faculty are usually here during the day, and the adjuncts are here during the
evening, so you don’t really have too much [interaction]… I don’t think you really do
that much in adjunct because, you know, adjunct faculty. You come in; you sometimes
are rushing to get from somewhere to class… You are as bad as your students, you know
… You’re coming in here and doing your hour or two in class, and then you are gone.
There is not too much opportunity to interact with any other [faculty].
Furthermore, as in Tina’s (RCC) case, there was a definite desire to establish
relationships with faculty colleagues. This desire seemed to be more pronounced for Tina
possibly due to the fact that she had the experience of working in a collegial atmosphere in her
former job as a public school teacher.
This area is the biggest drawback to being an adjunct professor in my experience, for a
number of reasons. When I was a public school teacher I had a tremendous camaraderie
with my colleagues…I formed very close working relationships and friendships with
other teachers. I miss that interaction a great deal. While my actual work is satisfying,
much more satisfying than when I taught language arts, I feel isolated personally and
professionally. I rarely see any other faculty member, adjunct or tenured. I truly enjoy
the interaction with my students, but I really miss working more closely with colleagues.
Interestingly, there was very limited dissatisfaction among the adjuncts in discussing
working with full-time faculty. Only one individual, Cara (TCC), a Ph.D. adjunct, felt strongly
enough to comment on it, and she indicated that the incidents were isolated. Her attitude could
derive from her dissatisfaction in being unable to obtain a full-time position and being relegated
to adjunct status.
We don’t get professional respect from full-time faculty…The full-time people, as I say,
some of them have a total disregard for our profession, no professional respect
whatsoever from some of them. Others, they…treat us like professionals…it is kind of
mixed. (Cara, TCC)
Other Adjunct Faculty. Most of the adjuncts had little interaction with other adjuncts,
except for initial meetings at the beginning of the semesters. The lack of interaction may be
caused by several factors. Many of the adjuncts worked evenings, and they often would come to
102

their class and leave afterwards without ever visiting any other area, which did not afford them
much opportunity to meet or socialize with others. Those who worked in the day seemed to have
slightly more contact with other faculty, part- and full-time, than those who worked only
evenings.
Constant turnover of adjuncts was also a contributing factor. With adjunct faculty,
attrition is always an issue. RCC had approximately 50% turnover. TCC had a 25% turnover,
which provided for a much more stable pool of adjuncts. Overall, administrations were aware of
the costs incorporated with adjunct turnover, but none of them discussed the negative impact to
the relations and satisfaction of adjunct faculty.
Bill was an adjunct at UCC for 18+ years, and he found that relationships were difficult
to establish with adjuncts due to turnover. “I don’t have as good a rapport with the adjuncts
because there is a quick turnover it seems. There are few that have been there for a long time,
but there are new names all the time.”
Furthermore, the initial meetings or orientations of the adjuncts at all three institutions
did not allow for much, if any, time to meet other adjuncts. Rita (RCC), Dan (TCC), Nancy,
(TCC), and Dave (UCC) commented that they did not know any other adjuncts mainly due to the
fact they were only on campus to teach their classes.
satisfied.
For adjuncts who had an opportunity to meet and interact with other adjuncts, they were
[I am] satisfied. Everyone is friendly and helpful to one another without regard to
whether full- or part-time, tenured, adjunct or whatever (Lori, RCC)
I like the adjuncts that I know, that I get to see…we get along fine. (Reba, TCC)
…we come and go, you know. So I only know a few people, but I think we get along
pretty well with the people. (Cara, TCC)
Hanna (TCC), who wanted to teach full-time and had interviewed at TCC for a full-time
position, taught full-time in community colleges for over 13 years and also taught for a few years
as an adjunct at the beginning of her career. She talked about her attitude towards adjunct before
she moved to TCC. Although she appreciated adjuncts while she was working full-time, she
never gave them the full respect they deserved or truly understood how difficult it could be, as
she attests to in her statement below:
103

While I was full-time, I wished I had gone out of my way to be nice to the adjuncts
[be]cause I see now what they are doing…I did it, you know. Fifteen years ago I was
starting out in Oregon and all that. Every person’s situation is unique you know. You
are young. You expect that you [have] to tough it out for a while and do stuff when you
are young, you know. I did it; three jobs in three different institutions part-timing it. Just
barely getting enough to live and then finally when I got my first real full-time job with
benefits I said, “Holy smokes, how did I do it?”… And I said, “Wow, how thankful I am
to have this job.” But I will forever be, you know, paying attention to adjuncts. They do
it. It’s a hard thing, depending upon their circumstances. There may be a lot of real
content, you know, ones that are doing it for different reasons, but those of us that are in
circumstance like mine [needing a full-time job], it is not easy. (Hanna, TCC)
Satisfaction with Department or Program Area
Departmental satisfaction was divided into four categories: the department or program
area, the support staff, the physical facilities, and the offices space and hours. There were mixed
reviews concerning the support of the administrators, physical facilities and office space and
hours; however, in discussing the support staff, the majority of the adjuncts found this to be the
most satisfying area of the department/programs.
Departmental Level. For most adjuncts, the department and program administrators had
an open door policy, and they felt they could ask questions freely. Words used to describe the
administrator include the following: friendly, cooperative, helpful, excellent, supportive,
accessible, respectful, on the ball, lovely, a sweetie, and a great gal. By their comments, it was
apparent the adjuncts appreciated being able to openly discuss problems and address issues with
their supervisors.
Ray, an adjunct for over 30 years, and Bill, an adjunct for over 18 years, both discussed
the support they received from their supervisors over the years.
I have had good supervisors. I have never felt that I wasn’t supported by my supervisors.
One of the things longevity gives you is you survive a lot of supervisors. I can’t think of
one I’ve had that I didn’t feel like I was supported by. (Ray, UCC)
I have been through quite a few department chairs over there, but there has always been
support. We have always had good training over there for adjuncts…the department
chairs have, without exception, all been very much open door policy people for anyone. I
have never felt like “you are an adjunct.”…I am on a first name basis with most full-time
people there…I have had several concerns. I have gone to talk to the department chair,
and he has raised the issues. Sometimes he has been able to do something about it,
sometimes not, and if he can, he explains why. I have no hesitation ever to bring things
up to him, which is a good feeling… I am very happy with the way I’m treated. I’m
104

treated like an equal, like a professional. There is no distinction between full-time and
adjunct in the way I’m treated. (Bill, UCC)
However, even when the adjunct was satisfied with the department and chairperson, there was
still a feeling of being an outsider, as Jean (TCC) explains in her statement below
It has to be the product that you’re representing where you draw your satisfaction or
gratification because the structure is good, and the current chairman in my department is
quite excellent and acceptable. You are still an invisible entity, make no mistake. They
might know your name… but you are a fifth wheel so to speak.
There were a few disgruntled individuals who felt that the administrators were not
supportive, and these adjuncts’ satisfaction levels were low. The dissatisfaction with
administration was focused within the adjuncts at RCC.
I went and talked to [the department head], with his open door policy, and I felt all I had
done was shoot myself in the foot…When I had my last confrontation with the
department head, he told me, in effect, that the attitude was that he was doing me a favor
by allowing me to work here to gain experience as a teacher so that I could then go on
and get a full-time job. And I said, “If they’re not going to hire me as a full-time
instructor at RCC where they know the work that I’ve done, where are they going to hire
me, especially if I’m the anonymous applicant with all these other people with higher
degrees?”…In 20 years are they still going to be doing me a favor? (Amy, RCC)
The department treats you sort of like they don’t trust you. You don’t have access to
things. You have to ask for paper and to make copies, not allowed to have access to
make own copies. Supplies you have to ask. I used to teach at [another community
college], and they were never like that. I don’t know that it’s not trusting or feeling
they’d be taken advantage of. (Jen, RCC)
Support Staff. The lifeblood for most of the adjuncts came through the departmental
support staff, the secretaries and assistants. With the limited orientation and integration of the
adjuncts, the secretaries and assistants were the individuals who provided the adjuncts with much
need information and directions. The following excerpts demonstrate the strong levels of
satisfaction felt towards support staff:
She’s great [speaking of the department chair’s assistant]. I don’t know if she actually
has any reason to assist me, but she does…She puts stuff in my mailbox and hunts me
down and everything else, so she’s very helpful…I just go to the other teachers for advice
on class issues or technical issues…but as for other ones [issues], I just go to [the
secretary]. (Tim, RCC)
I have to tell you that Gina [name changed] who is our secretary is also wonderful. You
really get the feeling that she is on our side…You go to the secretary if you have a
problem. The secretaries are the ones who really run this place. All the administrators
105

are getting huge salaries, and if the secretaries left, they would not have a clue. (Amy,
RCC)
[TCC support staff] are wonderful…and anything you need, you can ask any of them. It
doesn’t have to be your division support. You can ask any of them, and they’ll help you
out. (Lisa, TCC)
Yeah, they [TCC] are good…there is none of this “that is not my job,” and they may be
very busy…You know who I get most [of my] information is our secretary out
front…They run the place. They know how things are…She is so helpful, and …I know
they are the most important people to get to know…and she’s professional and she’s
good, and I really think they do a fine job. So I go to that person. In terms of the
teaching and all that, I mean, you know, I kind of knew how to do stuff but if I need
anything, I know who to ask, and they’re real good. No complaints (Hanna, TCC)
I would put all my stuff…in my department chair’s secretary’s box, and she would take
care of everything for me. When it was delivered, she would put it right in my box, and I
would have it whenever I needed it. (Bill, UCC)
Interestingly, none of the adjuncts expressed negative comments in this area. Everyone
in the study expressed a high level of satisfaction with departmental or program areas’ support
staff.
Physical Facilities. Physical facilities included the classrooms, offices, and other
physical aspects such as access to copiers, supplies, etc. There were mixed positions on the
physical facilities of the adjuncts. One of the main complaints, especially for evening
instructors, was inability to access facilities.
Tina (RCC), an evening instructor, often had problems with the technology for her
distance learning/interactive TV class, and she was unable to get help from the institution. Pete
(TCC), who also taught as an adjunct at another institution, believed he could not have done a
competent job if he had not had his other teaching position because he did all his copying and
preparation there. Occasionally, evening adjuncts were unable to access their mailboxes or other
needed items because the offices had closed for the night; however, all three institutions were
working on correcting the problems to better accommodate their evening instructors.
Of the three institutions, TCC was given the highest praise for its excellent facilities and
classroom set-up. Brad gives an example of this point of view:
Schools are places that have permanent facilities. I think that’s made the difference for
TCC…Permanent campus…tend to be a better experience for the adjuncts…I think it
gives it more of an educational feel…There is more of tone there and particularly with
106

the older students, I think it helps them transition from working into a student role… A
lot of these people are managers or supervisors. They’re use to giving orders and bossing
people around and taking the lead and taking initiative and teaching others, and they have
to come in at night, and they’ve got to put themselves into a subjective role, a student
role, someone dictating to them what’s what. I think it helps them make that transition.
The campus is nice—parking, every building. Somebody did a good job laying all this
out.
Concerning physical facilities, the one area that most frustrated the adjuncts at RCC was
the inability to make copies. In one particular department, the department chair had
implemented a policy that would not allow adjuncts to obtain an access code for the copier. The
reason given to the adjuncts was that it was to improve cost effectiveness. Also, the chairman
felt that many adjuncts worked for other institutions and would abuse the use of the copier. The
policy did not set well with the adjuncts affected by it.
The head of our department [at RCC] says that no adjuncts can have access to the copy
machine…so I felt that that was kind of a thing to adjuncts. You’re inferior. You’re not
responsible enough to have access to the copy machine because you will abuse this
privilege. We don’t trust you…One thing they could change that wouldn’t be skin off
anybody’s back, it would be to let us use the copy machine…it’s like we’re treated like
children. (Amy, RCC)
You don’t have access to things. You have to ask for paper…not allowed to have access
code to make my own copies. Supplies—you have to ask. I used to teach at [another
community college], and they weren’t like that. I don’t know that’s it’s not trusting or
feeling that they’d be taken advantage of. (Jen, RCC)
I asked [a fellow adjunct] what is the point of [not having access to the copiers]. She said
that she thinks adjuncts will abuse and use it for personal use and stuff like that, and they
don’t think full-time do that? I guess not. I didn’t say anything. The only person I’ve
talked to is the secretary. If I started saying something about it, I’d go off on them. (Tina,
RCC)
Although not all departments had the policy, most of the adjuncts at RCC with whom the
researcher spoke were in this department. Furthermore, the administrator did not discuss the
copier issues; he said that adjunct faculty had the same access as full-time faculty.
Although a seemingly minor item, the policy of not allowing adjuncts access to the
copiers made them feel inferior and untrustworthy. Furthermore, as Amy stated, it would appear
to be a very small adjustment for the department to make to help improve adjuncts’ satisfaction
level.
107

Office Hours and Office Space. Each department or program at the three institutions
handled the adjunct office hours and space differently. At RCC, the office space varied by
department. One department had a room, formerly the faculty lounge, with desks all along the
wall. Other departments did not have any designated space for their adjuncts. Some adjuncts,
such as Amy and Jen, had an office and were moved out to accommodate administrators and
full-time faculty during renovations. Jen felt as if she had been “shoved” out of her office,
leaving her with nowhere to go but a teacher workroom/lounge. Amy had her office for six
years when she was displaced, and she believed the lack of an office had a negative impact on
her students too. “The difference I notice from when I had an office—I got students coming in
talking to me…but I don’t get any of that now…I kind of felt like it was nice to be there for my
students.” The RCC administrator acknowledged that renovation had displaced some adjuncts,
but the division was working to make sure that each had a telephone and computer.
Some adjuncts, such as Tim, saw no need for an office since adjuncts were only required
to be there one-half hour before class. Rita, who taught only at night, also felt no need for an
office. A few shared space with another adjunct, which they found to be acceptable. Finally,
Tina, who taught with distance learning, had virtual office hours and did her office hours online
at home.
At TCC, adjuncts were required to hold one office hour for each class they taught, and
they were supposed to set, document, and adhere to their scheduled hours just like full-time
faculty. Some adjuncts found mandated office hours to be unneeded and frustrating because it
inhibited their ability to do other things. For example, Pam kept her hours for fear of getting into
trouble. “I heard that they actually check up on [office hours]. I just sit in my office sometimes
with absolutely nothing to do…and I feel like what a waste of time.” Reba, who was determined
to make better use of her time, noted, “If I have to go to the library or grading center…I make
sure I tell our office manager. ‘These are my office hours, but I need to do such and such on
campus.’”
In discussing office hours, Adam pointed out that most adjuncts spent much more than
one hour a week on grading, meeting with students, preparing for classes, etc. He believed that
most went significantly over the one hour per class requirement.
TCC had several types of facilities for adjunct office hours. One of the larger divisions
had an adjunct office that housed approximately 40 adjuncts. Each had desk area with a
108

telephone and cabinet space. The office had a computer with two printers for the adjuncts to use.
There were mixed reviews on this particular office. Some were just grateful to have a place to
go while others felt it was much too impersonal and public. The greatest complaint was the
inability to have private conversations as expressed by Cara in the following statement:
Our office space is pretty awful, pretty limited…so they took all the adjuncts and put us
in one like kind of barn. We have some little cabinet space and stuff like that, and
everybody has their own telephone. So we are all in this kind of open room. There are
no cubicles. Nothing to block sound…if there is one or two of us there…it is not bad, but
this morning there were five adjuncts in there holding office hours at the same, and it
turned out that three of us had students…then the telephones start going, and we have 42
telephones in this room also… Now obviously we are not all there at the same time
[be]cause people teach at night and everything like that. You know this is not
professional treatment… we are in this barn. You know, I see that as being a strong
impediment to my function as an instructor.
There were several other types of office space. The following adjuncts seemed to be
satisfied with their office situation. Eden had space in a room with cubicles for the adjuncts,
which provided for some privacy. Hanna, who shared her office with her husband, also an
adjunct, was very satisfied. “I have…my own telephone that I share with whoever is in my
office, which happens to be my husband, but you know it works out. A computer and a file
cabinet, I mean that’s huge, compared to a lot of other schools, with what adjuncts get.” Others,
who had traditional office spaces, were content, such as Jean, “Love TCC, have a great office, a
phone, a computer, and such.” Lisa, who worked full-time at the institution, had adjunct office
space she did not use. She chose to use her work office instead.
UCC required adjuncts to hold office hours one-half hour before or after class. Some of
the adjuncts had actual physical office space or teacher workroom areas they shared with other
adjuncts, but most held their hours in the classrooms. Suzi discussed her difficulty in not having
actual space.
There’s nowhere really. One of the hardest parts was at the beginning I was coming all
the way from [city about 45 minutes North], and I used to have to bring books from three
or four classes in the beginning. I was just carrying loads of stuff everywhere, and you
can’t leave your stuff anywhere…so they gave me a little trolley. (Suzi)
A few of the adjuncts who had been at UCC for a while had their own office for which
they were very grateful. Having their own office improved their satisfaction with the facilities as
Ellie’s comments show.
109

I’m part of the regular scenery now…and I have a little spot. I have a key to an office
that is right in my daily path. So those things have made it. It sounds like such small
things, but it really makes a big difference…I’m not really required to hold office hours.
I’ve been fortunate this year for the first time in all these years in having an office space
that is very convenient and in a good location for me. I’ve spent many semesters with no
office or an office in another building…places that I never went were designated as my
office space.
Bill, who had been at the institution for 18+ years, was in a very rare position. He had
his own private office with a window. When he disclosed his office accommodations in the
focus group, the other adjuncts were amazed that he was treated so well and had enough respect
from the program head that he would be given his own space with a view.
I have my own office now with one big window that looks out over the humanities
building…I don’t know of any other adjunct over there that has their own office…I
[have] a computer too…They gave me a new computer!
With a few noted exceptions, satisfaction with the physical facilities was good, but it
could always be improved. Department leaders were very accessible. Support staff was helpful.
Access to needed areas was acceptable. Areas that most strongly impacted the adjuncts
included feeling comfortable in approaching superiors, being able to access needed facilities, and
having at least a semi-private or private office space.
Satisfaction with Compensation & Benefits
In any industry or job, pay and benefits are always a key issue. At the three institutions
studied, the adjuncts were not given any benefits, and the pay schedule varied among the
institutions. This section will discuss the compensation and benefits including medical and
retirement benefits. In the focus groups, compensation was the most discussed issue.
Compensation. Overwhelmingly, the greatest dissatisfaction with being an adjunct was
the poor compensation followed by the lack of benefits. Dissatisfaction with compensation was
experienced by all of the adjuncts interviewed. Even if they were content teaching part-time and
had no desire to do anything else, all felt they should be paid more, as the following comments
illustrate:
I would also like better pay that more realistically reflects the job that I do…Money is
less of an issue, but still important. (Tina, RCC)
Well, of course, more money would always be a good thing. (Lori, RCC)
110

I would love to be paid more. (Nancy, TCC)
You make more just being a graduate assistant. I don’t know what is going on down here
in terms of salaries, but it is not good. (Hanna, TCC)
I can make in a day [consulting] what I make here all semester…I make double per class
over at [the university]. (Pete, TCC)
Well, [pay] could be higher. If I were self-sufficient and relying on [teaching adjunct], I
don’t think I could live on the salary of an adjunct. (Ellie, UCC)
[The things I would change] would all be money and benefits. (Bill, UCC)
Although Ray (UCC) felt the pay was too low, he acknowledged that he agreed to do the job at
the pay level offered.
Jean (TCC), who found the pay to be “ridiculous,” referred to adjuncts’ pay as “academic
serfdom monetarily.” “Migrant workers,” “indentured servants,” “civil war slaves,” and
“second-class citizens” were some of the descriptors adjunct faculty used to depict how their pay
made them feel.
An example of the low pay received by adjuncts was given by Amy (RCC) when she
discussed the janitor’s pay at a nearby community college (NCC). The adjuncts at NCC were
paid $1,450 per semester per class. If they worked the equivalent of a full-time instructor (ten
classes over the Fall and Spring semesters), their annual salary would be $14,500, which is less
than the janitor at the institution was paid, and he received health and retirement benefits. Amy
made the following insightful comment on the scenario:
…Activist groups on college campuses are now fighting to get a living wage for the
janitorial staff and so on. Why aren’t they fighting to get a living wage for the people
who are actually teaching the classes? We are supposed to be professionals. If it were
not for [adjuncts], there would be no classes. Yet…the guy out cutting the grass, why,
how do they even justify paying him more money? …We are the equivalent of slaves
before the civil war, and I brought this up at one of the faculty meetings that whenever
slavery is permitted to exist, people will take advantage of that situation (Amy, RCC)
When viewed from Amy’s perspective, it is understandable that adjuncts are dissatisfied
with pay. Adjuncts perform the service of teaching, which is central to the mission of the
institution. Furthermore, they are required to have a Master’s degree as a minimum level of
education, yet they are paid less than employees who are not required to have any postsecondary
111

training. Understandably this insight can significantly impact an adjunct’s morale and lead to
feelings of second-class citizenship.
During the discussion on the poor pay, the following dialogue from an RCC focus group
occurred exemplifying the poor pay level of some of the adjuncts and possible ethical issues:
Amy: …speaking of government paying, another adjunct here, who also works for more
than one college, just this year got off of welfare! She had several children, and she was
getting welfare and food stamps and lived on adjunct pay.
Tim: That’s a good example because the community college takes in all these welfare
people, saying “come to school, get an education, get off welfare.”
Amy: And yet their own teachers are on welfare.
Tim: I think the community college, with a big word community in there; they should be
setting the example.
Amy: That’s right! To me, it’s unethical the way the part-time teaching staff [are
treated]. I think we teach possibly half of the classes on campus. So they are really
dependent on us. And it’s because we work for this amount of money, [RCC President]
can make a $100,000 or however much he makes. It just seems like that gets down to a
basic ethical question. I said, “if we were coal miners, we’d be out breaking heads,” but
because people who get jobs teaching as adjuncts are not the kind of people who go out
and do that, we’re just steamrollered over.
Amy and Tim found it ironic that community colleges promoted education to get individuals off
of welfare, and there were adjuncts at their institutions who had to collect welfare to make ends
meet.
TCC and UCC had various levels of pay based on educational degree with doctorates
being paid the highest down to the lowest level of Associates’ degree or Professional
Certification/Licensure. RCC paid on a per student basis.
At all three institutions, individuals holding a Bachelor’s degree or lower could teach
only remedial level courses with the exception of some certificate programs. To teach college
credit courses at postsecondary institutions, SACS’ accreditation requires that individuals must
have a Master’s degree or higher and 18 graduate hours in the subject area being taught, and all
three institutions abide by SACS’ policies. If the adjunct did not have the proper graduate hours,
their position as an adjunct would have to be justified. For example, if adjuncts were world
renowned musicians, their experience and expertise would be used to justify their use as an
adjunct.
112

TCC’s pay schedule was two-fold: credit and/or contact hours and clock hours. Credit
or contact hours were paid at the following rate: $604 per hour for Doctorate, $558 per hour for
Master’s, and $504 per hour for Bachelor’s or Associate’s, professional certification or licensure,
and/or verified related work experience as a qualifying factor. If the adjunct is teaching on a
clock hour, such as labs, clinicals, and law enforcement, they are paid according to the following
schedule: $35.34 per hour for Doctorate, $25.49 per hour for Bachelor’s or Master’s, $22.60 per
hour for Associate’s, and $21.47 per hour for professional certification or licensure. Instructors
were paid $13.65 per class/contact hour for substituting in lectures. If they were substituting for
clock hours the pay was the following: $31.45 per hour for Doctorate, $22.65 per hour for
Bachelor’s or Master’s, $19.50 per hour for Associate’s, and $18.40 per hour for Professional
certification and licensure. This information was taken from TCC’s 2003 Human Resources
Manual.
UCC’s pay schedule was much more detailed than TCC’s. Pay is based on equated credit
hour (ECH). The pay schedule for 2003-04 was the following: $481 per ECH for an Associate’s
degree, $528 per ECH for a Bachelor’s degree, $589 per ECH for a Master’s Degree, $628 per
ECH for a Master’s + 30 [graduate hours], and $667 per ECH for Doctorate. UCC also offers a
number of high technology certificates and Associate of Science courses, and instructors’ pay
was significantly higher, ranging from $667 to $1,500 per ECH, depending on the field and
class. For non-credit courses, the contact hour rate was $13.00 to $125.00, again depending on
the type of class and level of instructor. Substitutes were paid $25 per contact hour. This
information was taken from the Adjunct, Temporary and Substitute Personnel: General
Compensation Information (http://www.[UCC].edu/central/hr/tempsal.htm#credit) [name
withheld for anonymity].
RCC’s pay schedule was not based on degree level, although the adjuncts must still
maintain the minimum SACS’ requirements to teach. Adjuncts were paid based on the number
of students in the class for a three-hour credit class. Table 8 shows the pay schedule. If paid by
contact hour, the pay was $17.00 per hour and could go up to $22.50 per hour if special
qualifications were required.
Although RCC adjuncts did not comment on being paid the same amount regardless of
educational level, there were some issues with being paid per student. Some instructors felt
pressure to ensure the students liked them and received a good grade so that other students would
113

sign up for their classes in the future. They also suggested that this made them more lenient in
class so they would have a good reputation with and referrals from the students, which
Table 8: RCC Pay Schedule
Enrollment Salary
1-6 $100 per student
7-10 $1,000 per class
11-16 $1,150 per class
17-23 $1,350 per class
24+ $1,550 per class
Provided by RCC Director of Human Resources, September 8, 2003.
may have an adverse effect on quality of instruction. Amy and Jen expressed their feelings
toward this policy in the statements below:
When you have that kind of sliding scale…you then have the motive to try and teach so
that as many students will sign up for your class as possible, so to maybe give A’s and
B’s…I think perhaps the administration is very well aware of this, and they can’t come
out and say, “we want a high enrollment; therefore don’t fail any of these kids.” But by
putting the financial burden on us, it kind of gives us the incentive to fail as few students
as possible so that the next year you will still get twenty-five students in your class.
(Amy)
Sometimes you’re in competition with the other adjuncts that are teaching the same
subject because pay is based on per head, on how many students you get per class. So [I]
feel like [we’re] competing with each other to get money. When it comes down to it, the
more students you have, the more money you make. I don’t enjoy that aspect of it…sort
of like you have to market yourself to get other students to say, “she’s this, take her.” So
you have to change, try to attract students…[I] probably would have taught the class
differently. If you know [your] livelihood didn’t depend on it,…I’d probably be stricter.
(Jen)
Table 9 shows the breakdown of pay by institution and degree level. The breakdown is
calculated on a per class basis with each class being a three-hour credit course with an
attendance of 20 students.
114

There is a distinct difference in the amounts paid by each institution, with UCC having
the highest pay schedule. However, these figures are calculated only on the class contact hours
of the instructor and do not compensate for initial class preparation, office hours, weekly class
preparations, test preparations, or grading.
Table 9: Adjunct Pay by Institution and Degree Level
Institution Doctorate Master's + Master's Bachelor's Associate's
RCC $1,350 $1,350 $1,350 $1,350 $1,350
TCC $1,725 $1,593 $1,593 $1,440 $1,440
UCC $1,944 $1,830 $1,716 $1,539 $1,401
Figures calculated on a per class basis with the class being three credit hours with 20 students in the class..
For example, if broken down by three-hour class, the instructor is in class for three hours
per week over a sixteen-week semester. With a minimal one hour per week for office hours, one
hour per week for test preparation and grading, three hours per week preparation for each class
(one hour per class), and 12 hours minimal initial class preparation, the instructor puts in a
minimum of 140 hours total in the semester. Based on Table 9’s pay scales, Table 10 shows the
hourly breakdown of the class if the adjunct works the 140 hours semester. As the table shows,
the hourly rates are extremely low, especially for requiring advanced degrees.
Table 10: Hourly Pay Rate of Adjuncts by Institution and Degree Level
Institution Doctorate Master's + Master's Bachelor's Associate's
RCC $9.64 $9.64 $9.64 $9.64 $9.64
TCC $12.94 $11.95 $11.95 $10.80 $10.80
UCC $14.29 $13.45 $12.62 $11.31 $10.30
Hourly rate for one 16 week semester, 8.75 hours per week (total 140 hours per semester)
Furthermore, many of the adjuncts averaged well over the 8.75 hours per week used in
this example, especially those in classes that required extensive writing such as English. The
following statements from the adjuncts are examples of the time they invested in their teaching.
115

I do a lot more than what I owe them based on what they pay me. Based on my personal
work ethic, I’m not going to teach a class and not do a good job. I feel like what they pay
is kind of insulting. I’m putting in all this time doing a good job, and it’s not worth it as
far as the money’s concerned. It’s not really a fair compensation for the amount of time
and effort I put in. (Tina, RCC)
…the way I teach them [the classes require a lot of out of class time]. You know you
could get away with giving three multiple-choice tests a semester,…but I don’t do that. I
give a quiz after every chapter, a quiz that I write myself. It is not a multiple-choice test,
and I make them do a project. Two of my classes right now are in the process of turning
in their big writing project for the semester where they actually have to go out and collect
psychological data and write it up as though they were writing a professional publication
and things like that. So, it’s a burden on me too. It’s a lot of work for them, but it’s a lot
for me too because I have to shepherd them through the process. (Cara, TCC)
I’ve worked too hard for what little money I get, and as an English teacher I’m constantly
marking papers, and I also collect the homework almost every time and I look at it. I
don’t give a grade to the homework, but I look at it and sometimes make comments on it.
This is way beyond and above the call of duty, but that is the way I am. (Pam, TCC)
I did find though it’s the first time I’ve taught that particular class that I probably spent
three times as much time as I was getting paid for (Chris, UCC)
Well it is a flat fee. If you do it per hour, it is not a real good hourly rate. (Ray, UCC)
Adjuncts invested a lot of time outside of the classroom preparing for lectures, creating
tests, grading test and writing projects, and meeting with students. Reba (TCC) discussed how
difficult it was to really put in the required time needed to properly prepare for a class when she
was not compensated for her outside work, especially when she was teaching the equivalent load
of a full-time instructor between two institutions. Although she wanted to be able to invest more
time, her finances and class load would not allow her, and she felt badly that she was unable to
give the commitment to her classes she would like. Her frustration with the pay and system is
evident in her comments below:
They don’t pay me enough, quite frankly, to do more than I’m doing, and that sounds
terrible…I would love to be able to devote more time to preparing for my classes. Once I
got my lectures put together, I continue to use them. I add here and there, but I use what
I’ve got. I don’t have time to reinvent the wheel every semester…I would like to freshen
up my materials every semester, but I don’t have the time…The classes we teach carry
the same value on a student’s transcript as that of a full-time instructor. There is no
distinction made, but we’re not compensated that way, and when I am, I will put in the
extra time. Until then, I can’t because teaching four courses [two at the community
college and two at the university], as I am, I’m not even making a full-time income. I am
116

not even making a decent part-time income. If I had a half-time job, I would probably
earn more…not only do they pay us so little, but they nickel and dime us with everything
else. In a way, it is an insult considering the fact that we have the same qualifications as
their full-time faculty. It’s grating…I’m doing it, but I’m hav[ing] to work so much just
to put a decent salary together. I’d like to be able to pay off my student loans before I
retire…I make twice as much for a class at [the university] as I do here…My argument is
with the system that is in place that goes above the community college level. It rests with
the Board of Trustees that make salary scales and all the other regulations that we have to
abide by… [Pay] should be more. For a Ph.D., it is $1,640 for a semester—an entire
semester,…and I earn $3,400 at [the university], and there are some classes at [another
university] that adjuncts earn [$5,000} but really large sections… Working it out by units
the way they do, it looks like we make a lot per hour but…
As Reba discussed, many adjuncts felt they were not being paid appropriately in comparison to
the full-time faculty, especially with the educational requirements for hiring being the same.
In the community college system, the average salary for a full-time instructor for the Fall
2003 semester was $45,803 for a 2.0 semester equivalent (The Fact Book, 2003a). Table 11
gives the salaries of full-time instructors by degree level and 2.0 Semester Equivalent and by the
three institutions and system-wide (The Fact Book, 2003a).
Table 11: Full-Time Instruction Personnel Salaries by Institutions and Degree Level
(Fall 2003)
2.0
Masters
Institution Equiv. Doctorate +30 Masters Bachelors Associates
RCC $38,233 $42,215 $44,687 $37,050 $39894, $31,849
TCC $55,880 $59,442 $0 $54,568 $50,412 $0
UCC
System-
$46,939 $52,157 $47,672 $43,737 $43,801 $37,696
wide $45,803 $52,257 $47,530 $44,416 $40,205 $38,968
Figures are based on 2.0 semester equivalent, which are determined by the application of
conversion factors to the 2.5 and 3.0 semester salaries.
Table 12 shows the hourly breakdown of Table 11’s salaries based on two 16-week
semesters, working 40 hours per week or 640 hours per semester. Moreover, full-time faculty
are not required to work a standard 40-hour week. For example, UCC requires full-time faculty
to hold a minimum of 30 to 36 duty hours, and a duty hour is defined as 50-minute hours, which
117

is the equivalent of 25 to 30 hours per week on campus. Translated to a 16-week semester, the
total hours would be 480 instead of 640, which would increase the hourly pay by approximately
25%.
Table 12: Hourly Rate of Full-Time Faculty by Institution and Degree Level
Institution 2.0 Equiv. Doctorate
Masters
+30 Masters Bachelor's Associates
RCC $29.86 $32.98 $34.91 $28.94 $31.16 $24.60
TCC $43.65 $46.43 $0.00 $42.63 $39.38 $0.00
UCC
System-
$37.85 $40.75 $37.24 $34.16 $34.21 $29.45
wide $35.78 $40.82 $37.13 $34.70 $31.41 $22.63
Hourly rate for two semesters, 16 week semesters, 40 hours per week (Total 640 hours per semester)
Table 13 shows the comparison of full-time faculty’s hourly rates (from Table 12) to
adjuncts’ hourly pay (from Table 10). The full-time faculty’s hourly salary rate is 255% to
362% higher than the adjunct’s rate. When analyzing pay from this perspective, it is
understandable that there is a low level of satisfaction for pay.
Table 13: Comparison of Hourly Pay Between Full- and Part-Time Faculty
Institution Doctorate Master's + Master's Bachelor's Associate's
RCC 342% 362% 300% 323% 255%
TCC 359% n/a 357% 365% n/a
UCC 285% 277% 271% 302% 286%
Table 14 shows the pay rate for adjuncts if paid at a comparable hourly rate as full-time
faculty. The 140 hours per semester is based on the example used previously. In comparison to
Table 9, there is a significant increase in the per course pay.
Table 15 shows the per semester pay rate for a course if adjunct faculty were paid strictly
for actual contact hours with students. For a three credit course, contact hours would be three
class hours and one office hour per week. Based on a 16 week semester, the total number of
118

contact hours would be 48. Although the hourly rates for UCC’s Masters +30 & Master’s level
are -2% & -3%, respectively, and RCC’s Associates pay schedules are lower, the remainder of
the salaries would be 1% to 23% higher. One of the reasons in the decrease at the Associate’s
level is that often these are certificate programs, which may be technical certificates, and the
salary of adjuncts for these programs are often higher than the standard pay because of the
difficulty of finding individuals with expertise. Also, UCC’s initial pay schedule was higher than
TCC and RCC. Furthermore, administrators and adjuncts acknowledged that adjuncts spend
much more time on their classes than the basic contact hours with students.
Table 14: Per Course Pay for Adjuncts at Full-Time Faculty Hourly Rate
(140 Hours Per Semester)
Institution Doctorate
Masters
+30 Masters Bachelor's Associates
RCC $4,617.20 $4,887.40 $4,051.60 $4,362.40 $3,444.00
TCC $6,500.20 $0.00 $5,968.20 $5,513.20 $0.00
UCC
System-
$5,705.00 $5,213.60 $4,782.40 $4,789.40 $4,123.00
wide $5,714.80 $5,198.20 $4,858.00 $4,397.40 $3,168.20
Per course salary, 16 week semester, 8.75 hours per week (Total 140 hours per semester)
Per hour rate of full-time faculty
Table 15: Per Course Pay for Adjuncts at Full-Time Faculty Hourly Rate
(48 Hours Per Semester)
Institution Doctorate
Masters
+30 Masters Bachelor's Associates
RCC $1,583.04 $1,675.68 $1,389.12 $1,495.68 $1,180.80
TCC $2,228.64 $0.00 $2,046.24 $1,890.24 $0.00
UCC $1,956.00 $1,787.52 $1,639.68 $1,642.08 $1,413.60
System-wide $1,959.36 $1,782.24 $1,665.60 $1,507.68 $1,086.24
Per course salary, 16 week semester, 3 class hours and 1 office hour per week (Total 48 hours per
semester); Per hour rate of full-time faculty
119

Although there is a huge disparity between the pay of adjuncts and full-time faculty, the
adjuncts believed they were as effective teachers as their full-time counterparts, as their
comments indicate:
I’m doing what I want to do. I just get ticked off when I see someone else who is doing
the exact job that I’m doing, perhaps not even doing it as well, but he is getting paid three
times the rate that I’m getting paid. He doesn’t have to go out and pay a $100 and so
much a month for health insurance and so on …I was actually working more than fulltime
[a combination of classes at two community colleges approximately 45 minutes
apart] plus putting in all that travel, and yet just making ¼ of what the full-time
[make]…I’m just saying that they should be paying us proportionally at the same rate as
the entry-level full-time…It all comes down to supply and demand because there are
enough people willing to teach these classes for a small amount of money. (Amy, RCC)
Just because they are full-time, doesn’t say they teach any better. It doesn’t say they
teach any less. They are expected to teach just as well…because you are full-time, you
give 100% in class; I’m part-time, and I give 100% in class too. (Eden, TCC)
They can hire about three adjuncts for every full-time. (Cara, TCC)
…and why is there such a huge discrepancy [between full- and part-time pay]. I’m doing
the same thing as somebody upstairs who happens to teach [full-time]. Not only that, she
only has to teach one more class than I do. I teach three. She teaches four. Why is there
such a huge discrepancy between what I’m getting and what she is? (Hanna, TCC)
The classes we teach carry the same value on a student’s transcript as that of a full-time
instructor. There is no distinction made, but we’re not compensated that way. (Reba,
TCC)
I’d change the pay…Pay is consistently low, and in many cases doing the same quality
work as a full-time member…I am actively doing every day…what I teach, and I’ve been
told that’s not often the case where somebody is an adjunct or full-time, so I bring that
skill. (Ray, UCC)
Moreover, several of the administrators acknowledged that the adjuncts were as effective
teachers as full-time faculty and sometimes better. One administrator commented, “I would say
some of our adjuncts probably provide better quality of instruction than some of our full-time
[faculty].” An administrator at another institution acknowledged that the quality of teaching
depended on the individual. He had some adjuncts he wanted to hire, but he did not have a
position for them, while there were tenured full-time faculty that he wanted to replace. “I would
say generally, that the quality of teaching is as comparable as a full-time [faculty].”
120

In addition to low pay, several of the adjuncts indicated they were not paid for any
committee or faculty meetings they attended, even if the meeting was required by the department
or institution. In order to encourage attendance at workshops, TCC had implemented a policy
that would pay the adjuncts for attending workshops:
What they have done in our department is that there is going to be [a meeting] tomorrow,
on safety, and so what they’ve done is they tried to set these for us as workshops so they
can actually pay us substitute pay for it. So we’ll get $27.30 or something. That’s
coming here tomorrow night on campus, right here. Otherwise, they don’t [pay for
attending meetings]. (Reba, TCC)
If an adjunct at RCC assisted with the development of an online course, the institution
provided technical as well as monetary support. TCC and UCC also provided additional
compensation for development of online courses by adjuncts.
There was also a difference in satisfaction levels if the adjuncts were financially
dependent on the income from their adjunct positions, and those who were reliant on the income
from part-time teaching were much more vocal about the pays and benefits. For Amy and
Hanna, adjunct teaching was their primary form of income, which made for a financial strain on
both.
Once, while I was still married and had all the nice benefits like health insurance and so
on, I was perfectly content to go along and teach for whatever they pay me…so part-time
was fine with me…Of course that’s the myth of the adjunct instructor, it’s usually either
somebody who has a full-time job somewhere else or who is successfully married and
everything is provided for them and is just doing it for fun on the side. But once I needed
it to be my source of income, it was a different story, and I started to push for things—
talk about things like benefits. (Amy, RCC)
For a lot of people this is not an issue at all. They are retired…they will tell you so. It is
just pin money. They have husbands that are employed…and this is just something to do.
But if you are trying to break in or if you are trying to survive, you know, it is very, very
difficult. (Hanna, TCC)
Brad was teaching as an adjunct for secondary income, and he was far less concerned about the
pay.
It’s not bad…The adjuncts are not really doing it for the money because it’s not real
fantastic money. It’s pocket change… As a matter of fact, I never even sat down and said
okay, if I took this what I’m getting paid to teach this course as an adjunct and spanned it
out to full-time would. I’m not really worried about it. (Brad, TCC)
The administrators also acknowledged that it was most difficult on the adjuncts who were
121

dependent on their pay. The CAO at RCC acknowledged that pay was low, but she pointed out
that the average salary in RCC’s service area was $18,000. She also noted that the funding was
restricted, which affected pay schedules. Having been an adjunct for seven years, the CAO also
acknowledged the difficulties of being an adjunct; however, she believed she was very upfront
with adjuncts when hiring and told them, “don’t depend on this as your livelihood.”
Although there is delineation in pay at TCC & UCC based on degree level, none of the
institutions increased compensation based on years of service. That is, the pay scale was the
same regardless of the length of time one had been an adjunct instructor; however, there were
slight increases yearly in the pay scales for TCC and UCC. RCC’s scale had not changed in
several years. TCC had discussed pay raises based on seniority, but the policy had not been
adopted. Furthermore, although the institution did not pay based on seniority, one administrator
admitted that adjuncts who performed well, had a good track record, and were liked by the
students, were given classes first.
Lack of seniority was a point of issue with some of the long-term adjuncts. Chris, a
Ph.D., had worked and taught at UCC for 30 years before retiring, and he felt it was unfair for
someone who had never taught to be paid the same rate as adjuncts with longevity. “It just
seems that in education if experience is supposed to be important, then why isn’t it important for
adjuncts as well? Why can’t Ray get paid more because he has been an adjunct all these [30+]
years?” Bill, an 18 year adjunct and Ph.D., pointed out that “Someone could come in who has
never taught and would make exactly the same thing that somebody who has the same degree is
making, who has taught for 30 years;” however, Bill also noted that “as long as a department has
a large pool from which to draw, there is no incentive to increase your salary.”
Another issue discussed by adjunct faculty that affected their level of satisfaction was the
uncertainty of pay schedules, receipt of paychecks, and the amount they were actually making.
This lack of understanding may be due to the types of orientation given to adjuncts, which is
discussed later in this chapter. According to Jill (UCC), adjuncts at UCC could work one and a
half to two months before getting their first paycheck, “and for someone that’s really dependent
upon their salary, that’s horrible.”
Rita (RCC) found payday confusing, and clarity was important to her. “I wish that was a
little more clear to me [be]cause I teach more than one class, and I want to make sure I’m getting
credit for all the things that I teach so I have sit down and figure it out myself.” Furthermore,
122

adjuncts at RCC who taught independent studies were not paid until the end of the term.
There was also confusion at UCC, as Ellie discusses below:
I wasn’t depending on my checks for my bread and butter, and it was a good thing
because there was so much vagueness [about how much she was making and when
paychecks were issued]. I don’t think it was intentional…but it was strange to me
because usually right there where you work, somebody knows the answers to these [pay]
questions…There is a little lack of knowledge there and I don’t know why that is. I
guess it is my job to call personnel and find out what I’m earning…It is public record, it
is public record and should be right there…I don’t know. I think [the pay rate] depends
on education…For example, in the public schools there is a chart that comes out every
year saying if you taught this many years you earn this much. If you are a substitute, you
earn this much. It is all very, very out front, and I feel it’s a little more Byzantine here,
and I don’t know why that is, unless people are getting hired at [different] rates.
The adjuncts at all three institutions had high levels of dissatisfaction with compensation.
It was most prominent in the adjuncts who were financially dependent on their income from their
adjunct position. Furthermore, when compared to salary scales of full-time faculty, pay was
significantly lower for adjuncts even though most felt they were doing as comparable or better
job teaching as full-time instructors.
The other facet of compensation with which adjuncts expressed dissatisfaction was
benefits. Benefits included health insurance, life insurance, retirement plans, vacation and sick
leave, and other perks. None of the institutions offered medical or life insurance, vacation leave,
or sick leave to their adjuncts. Adjuncts were eligible for workman’s compensation at all three
institutions. On occasion, adjuncts would apply for unemployment benefits, but due to the one
semester contracts, none had been able to collect. At the time of the interviews, all cases
involving unemployment pay sided with the institutions. Medical insurance was the most
desired benefit, with retirement plans being second.
Medical Benefits When discussing medical benefits, adjuncts fell into three categories:
those who were covered by another source or their own full-time job, those who covered
themselves, and those who were not covered. Although they did see a need for medical benefits,
adjuncts covered by another source were not as concerned. They also realized that giving
adjuncts benefits could be a formidable expense to the institution.
I’ve always been on my husband’s insurance. Benefits have not been as much an issue.
(Tina, RCC)
123

My husband covers us with benefits. That’s the only reason why we have benefits.
Otherwise, there is nothing. (Reba, TCC)
I have Medicare and AARP supplemental so I don’t need the medical choice
now…Medical insurance is very expensive. Thank God now I don’t have to be afraid to
go to the doctor. There was a time when I would just put off going. (Pam, TCC)
They really couldn’t afford to offer all adjunct benefits. Part-time people don’t get any
benefits in most all jobs. They don’t get them. So I didn’t expect any of that when I was
hired on. (Rita, RCC who received benefits from her full-time job)
They are making a fortune on adjuncts as it is now with no benefits (Bill, UCC who is
covered by his full-time position).
Adjuncts who covered themselves felt providing insurance to adjuncts was an excellent
idea, however, there was an understanding of the financial constraints as Nancy discussed,
“Something like insurance would be a wonderful benefit, but I understand the budget
constraints.” As Jill (UCC) remarked below, not having benefits leads to lower satisfaction.
You don’t have insurance. You don’t have any of the things full-time faculty people do,
and that, in itself, can make you feel somewhat diminished…so I think a lot of it has to
do with the benefits that you do not get, and I’m sure the junior college is not the only
one. Most colleges, corporations…hires part-time people all the time because they don’t
have to pay them benefits. Benefits cost a great deal of money, and if you can avoid that
as a business, you are going to be saving a great deal of money.
Although covered through Medicare at the time of the interview, Pam (TCC) had no
health coverage when she began to teach as an adjunct because she could not afford it.
It was very scary for me when I first came to [town], and I didn’t have medical insurance.
I made darn sure not to get sick. Thank God now I don’t have to be afraid to go to the
doctor. There was a time when I would just put off going.”
She adamantly believed adjuncts should fight for benefits because of the importance of health
coverage.
Ray (UCC), a professional writer, also believed benefits were important. At the time of
the interview, he paid for his own coverage, and he realized that providing benefits to adjuncts
would take some thought and planning by the institutions:
I also wished there were benefits; of course, because I have to pay my benefits myself
and worry about that…I think benefits are a long stretch. I think you could figure out
benefits, even partial benefits…I think there is certainly potential for something like
[partial benefits]. If not partial benefits, then…some health benefits…I think those kind
of discretionary perks, if that is the right word, are possible, but how do you get them?
124

How does a director plan in the budget for those? I don’t know those answers to those
questions. I don’t think it has to always be the way it is.
For adjuncts financially dependent on their teaching income, the need to purchase their
own insurance provided yet another added burden to their finances.
So I wrote him [the RCC President] a letter and brought up the question of benefits for
adjuncts instructors, and he wrote me back saying the reason [RCC] cannot give benefits
to adjunct instructors is because there is such a turnover. It would be impossible for our
administrative staff to keep track of them. Well, I’ve worked here for seven or eight
years; the Spanish teacher has been here for 15 years…maybe they could come up with a
program where, if you served five years of your sentence, maybe then you could be
provided benefits, or maybe they could pay part of your health insurance. For almost
four years, I had gone without health insurance at all. I figure, again I made myself
unpopular by saying in a meeting that, “well if I get sick, I’m just gonna die, and I’m
gonna come right here and do it.” But finally this summer I got a little bit worried, and I
went and got health insurance…and I got a surprisingly reasonable rate. So I feel a little
bit better that…I won’t have to die if I come down with something catastrophic. (Amy,
RCC)
Pay for me is very secondary…[Lack of insurance] would be [my biggest issue]…I have
no medical protection down here. So being an adjunct prevents me almost from staying
here because I can’t look for jobs now. (Suzi, who is at UCC on a work visa)
Hanna (TCC) suggested offering a part-time health plan. “I know there are places where
you can get insurance if you are part-time, and I think that is nice for people like me who are in
transition or one person…I think it would be good to have as an option.”
Surprisingly, several of the adjuncts, who did not have benefits through other jobs, did
not carry any medical insurance because they felt they could not afford it or did not need it. Tim
(RCC), who had no medical insurance, suggested that adjuncts be allowed to buy into the plan.
Even if they had to pay full cost, they would still have coverage, and it would give the individual
an opportunity to be a part of a larger system and lower their insurance costs. Ellie (UCC) also
had no medical insurance:
No [insurance], not right now. My husband is self-employed, and so this is not
something I want to continue now indefinitely…The main benefit of full-time work is all
the benefits. Medical insurance and a big part of the Florida retirement system and
whatever else is involved, and I don’t have any of those benefits as an adjunct. So I think
to do it forever would be okay if I didn’t need any of those perks, but I will use them
when I have them…The only problem is medical insurance. Probably, it’s the single
missing piece that would make me real happy.
125

If a catastrophic emergency were to occur, the adjuncts, who have no medical insurance,
would incur a huge financial burden. Furthermore, if they could not bear the costs, they become
a financial burden to society. Although institutions may consider the costs of medical insurance
to be high, the cost to society could be even greater if adjuncts with no medical insurance must
rely on the government to pay unexpected medical costs.
Retirement Plans. Although medical and life insurance benefits were not offered at the
institutions, the adjuncts did have some opportunities to put their own money into an alternative
social security plan. None of the institutions contributed money towards these retirement plans.
RCC adjuncts had the option of putting money into an IRA type of fund. UCC adjuncts could
pay into a tax-deferred fund.
In the past, TCC adjuncts contributed to social security, but now they have an alternative
to social security where the same portion, approximately seven percent, is deducted from their
pay and put into a 401K-type plan. The problem that some had with the new policy was that
their overall pay was actually decreased, as Cara explains:
When I first started teaching here we were being covered by Social Security. Okay?
There was a matching obviously, you know, a certain part of our check went to Social
Security and the people, the college was required to match that… So eventually when I
get to age 65, you know, I would be able to collect Social Security. Now we don’t have
that system. Now [the institutions] are allowed to give us alternate Social
Security…They deduct a portion of our pay. The same portion, which is like 7% or
something like that, goes into what they call a 401K. The college, on the other hand, is
not required to make a contribution to that…So in essence they stole 7% of our pay. But
then they had given us a few hundred dollars raise [chuckle] so it looks like, you know,
we are getting a raise but in fact, you know, they have stolen 7% in terms of their budget
from us. And for the first two or three years, the money was going into regular savings
account so you were making like 1% a year interest on our own contribution. Now at
least they have gotten it into a more reasonable investment kind of thing where we are
making around 4% or 5%. I don’t know what it’ll be now but you know. There may be
0% interest but at least, you know, for three years or something like that, you know, we
were collecting 1% on our own money…If you quit your job, then you can have the
money but then they charge you a processing fee. Somebody also told me that, I just
found out, … if [you] don’t teach during the summer [and] there is not investment going
into your plan, they charge you $3 a month, something like that, for managing your noninvestment.
But they don’t tell you this, you see… They didn’t give [us] a choice as to
whether we wanted to move from Social Security to alternate Social Security. They just
told [us] “we are moving.”… I think we should at least be given the option, or we should
be told. We were never told this obviously, you know. You have to have some
mathematical sense. You have to sit there and figure out how much money you are
126

losing, which most people don’t, and younger people don’t even think about their Social
Security.
Ellie (UCC) discussed the usefulness of a more solid retirement plan, especially since
many adjuncts were current or former high school teachers or community college retirees already
in Florida’s retirement system.
The Florida retirement system is huge…I’m vested in the Florida retirement system from
public school work. To not continue paying into that pool…hurts me in the future, so
that is a big issue.
Other Benefits or Perks. Other benefits and perks offered by the institutions varied.
Although the adjuncts realized they had no medical benefits or retirement plans, many of the
adjuncts had no idea what other perks or benefits were available to them.
Paid vacation and sick leave were two desired benefits that several adjuncts mentioned,
but adjuncts were not eligible for these at any of the institutions.
…you don’t get paid vacation. I love to travel; I wished I could get more paid vacation.
(Pam, TCC)
…we get no vacation. We get no accrued leave time including sick leave. So if you are
sick, or you need to be off for something like that, you have to get some person to
substitute for you. (Cara, TCC)
RCC offered several benefits to their adjuncts. Adjunct faculty who had taught at least
one semester could take classes free, one class for each class they taught; however, only full-
time faculty members’ children could go free. They also had faculty parking and library
privileges, but RCC did not offer the same bookstore discount to adjuncts as they did to full-time
faculty members.
TCC also offered free classes to the adjuncts. Other perks included library privileges and
faculty parking.
UCC adjuncts received no retirement benefits. They were given library and parking
privileges, and there were some perks, such as discount passes to theme parks, they could
acquire through Human Resources.
Overall, Jill (UCC) summarized how the lack of benefits affected job satisfaction. “You
don’t have any of the things that full-time people do, and that, in itself, can make you feel
somewhat diminished.”
127

Satisfaction with Recruitment, Orientation, and Integration
This section will discuss the satisfaction levels of the adjuncts with recruitment,
orientation, and integration. For the purpose of this study, the following are the definitions for
these three areas: Recruitment is the hiring process including initial contact, applications,
interviews, and hiring. An orientation is any meeting and/or training the adjuncts received upon
hiring and before teaching. Occasionally, the institutions provided some in-house workshops
and sessions during the semester, and this is discussed with orientation but is considered
training. Finally, integration is the attempt to make the adjuncts feels as if they are a part of the
institution, department, and faculty. This includes providing mentors, socialization
opportunities, and special recognition efforts.
Recruitment. The adjuncts in the study were hired through various methods. Several
were interested in earning a little extra money, had their Master’s or Doctorate, thought teaching
would be a good part-time job, and applied for an adjunct position. Three went through the
formal interview process for a full-time position, did not get the job, and decided to come to the
institution as an adjunct in hopes of obtaining a full-time position. Another was asked to teach
part-time by an acquaintance he knew at the institution. A few specifically sought out a position
as an adjunct to get experience teaching while completing their graduate degree. All the adjuncts
went through an application process, which consisted of submitting a résumé, completing a
detailed application, and providing education transcripts. Most were required to interview for
the position.
Tim (RCC), a first semester adjunct, had an interesting viewpoint on the hiring process.
He remarked that the institutions required an extensive process for applications, transcripts and
references without giving any guarantee of employment.
That’s one thing that I noticed. The application process for me to get in here was quite a
bit—big ol’ fancy application and all kinds of references and official transcripts,
interviews. I mean it was a lot [of] work just to show up [for them to say] “and oh you
don’t have a class this semester” or “it made, but you can’t go.” It’s…weighted real
heavy on their side for the input I did to get it [versus] unknown benefits.
At all three institutions, the Board of Trustees actually hired the adjuncts. In addition,
the Division of Community Colleges has established guidelines for hiring adjunct faculty for the
community colleges to follow (See Appendix N), and all three institutions adhere to the SACS’
guidelines for accreditation purposes. Unlike searches for full-time faculty, formal committees
128

and search criteria were not established for the hiring of adjuncts.
From the administrator’s perspective, hiring adjuncts was an ongoing process. All three
institutions usually used more adjuncts in the Fall term than the Spring Term, and very few
adjuncts were used during the Summer. To attract adjuncts, all three institutions ran
advertisements in area newspapers, on the local cable station, and on their website.
Finding qualified adjuncts willing to work for the low pay was a problem discussed by all
the administrators. To assist in the hiring process, RCC established faculty coordinators who
were responsible for the hiring and monitoring adjuncts. RCC had a difficult time in finding
qualified adjuncts due to the rural area and low number of individuals with a Master’s Degree in
the region. The RCC CAO admitted the institution needed more creative ways to hire adjuncts.
She believed paying them for mileage might attract more candidates, but the state did not allow
mileage except in specific cases.
The RCC administrator believed the most difficult problem with hiring adjuncts was lack
of experience. Although many had excellent credentials and were qualified in their experience,
they had no teaching experience. Furthermore, many adjuncts found it difficult to transition
from their subject field to the classroom, and developing their teaching abilities proved to be a
challenge.
The TCC CAO emphasized the low pay problem in finding qualified applicants, too.
Finding adjuncts for the community college level was difficult, especially when local four-year
institutions were paying twice as much per course. Furthermore, the available pool of adjuncts
was affected by the need for full-time amenities such as benefits, and TCC would often lose part-
time faculty to high schools. She believed that it was more likely for adjuncts to decline
teaching at TCC than for TCC to bump an adjunct.
In addition, community colleges are in a unique position that required careful planning,
which the TCC CAO explained below:
Universities have, of course, the whole teaching assistantship, but those people are
obligated to do well for the institution because they need something from the institution.
So we’re really the only level that has this whole group, fairly large group, of our
employees who have no obligation to us, and we have no obligation to them beyond a
one-semester commitment. Therefore, it takes a lot of energy and a lot of goodwill on
both parts to keep it working.
129

Also, with the demand for technologically savvy classes growing, administrators believed
that adjuncts must be able to incorporate new technology and multimedia methods into their
teaching. In addition, the TCC department chair believed that the real world experience
incorporated by adjuncts provided a unique opportunity for students.
The research literature indicates that many educators take a position as an adjunct in
hopes of “getting their foot in the door;” however, the literature noted that part-time teaching
positions often do not lead to full-time jobs. This was also the case in this study for a number of
adjuncts. Furthermore, adjuncts, such as Amy (RCC) who did not originally have any intention
of teaching full-time, found that their individual life situations changed to where they wanted to
teach full-time, and they mistakenly felt their experience as an adjunct would open doors to full-
time jobs.
Also, adjuncts seeking full-time employment felt they were given veiled promises of
hiring that never came to fruition. This was especially notable among those in the fields such as
history and English where there is an abundant supply of individuals with Ph.D.’s and few
teaching positions. This was evident in the experience of Amy, a seven year adjunct instructor at
RCC who had a Master’s Degree in history.
…when there was a full-time opening in history, I applied for that. Over the years
…whenever I would bring up the question of a full-time job, I had been told “well Bob
[name changed] is going to be retiring just hang in there,” and when Bob [a previous fulltime
history teacher] turned in his letter of retirement, I went to talk to my department
head. Once again [he] assured me that he saw no reason why I would not get the fulltime
job [because] everybody knew that I did a wonderful job. Everybody on the
committee would know me. He sounded like it was a shoe-in. When it came down to it,
[interested candidates] had put in like 200 applications, most of them with doctorates,
and I did not even get an interview. And all the people who had said, “of course we’re
going to support you for this job,” all of a sudden did not know who I was. I was told it
was inappropriate for me to even talk to them. Whereas the full-time applicants who
came to the campus, it was fine for them to talk to these people. So you probably can tell
I have an axe to grind…All I got was form letters saying “thank you for your interest in
[Rural Community College.]” My department head never even told me ahead of time,
“Well you’re not being considered for such and such a reason.”…I even pointed out just
the year before that he had assured me that there was no reason why I wouldn’t get the
job, and he said, “Well your memory of that is different from mine.” I have to admit I
got upset and broke down and cried because I brought up everything, the copy
machine…It doesn’t make any difference, they don’t care…It kind of reminded me of the
biblical story of Jacob [who] worked for seven years because he was promised that he
would have Rachel as his wife, and then once his seven years were up, the father said,
“Well you’re gonna have to take Leah and work another seven years.” So, they didn’t
130

even give me something of a consolation prize. Maybe they could have given me the
benefits as the consolation prize, but that wasn’t the plan. (Amy, RCC)
Amy (RCC) was apparently very vocal about her adjunct status and frequently
confronted the administrators and other part-time faculty. Furthermore, the administrators were
aware of her issues. Concerning Amy, the CAO stated,
Teaching part-time in a college certainly can help you get your foot in the door; it did in
my career. It’s not always going to be the case, and this person was very vocal to the
part-time faculty. She was very accusatory to the administration…taking advantage of
people…to the point that I had to remind her that there were a lot of full-time jobs there,
and you can’t rely on that.
Furthermore, both administrators discussed the issue of longevity and how it may not
lead to full-time work. In addition, one administrator pointed out that some adjuncts were more
involved in the institution, and these adjuncts felt this involvement was an act of loyalty that
should be reciprocated by the institution. He was adamantly opposed to this type of thinking
because he knew that often it was not reciprocated with a full-time job. The CAO made the
following comment:
My advice to any adjunct would be, “if you’re looking for a full-time job, you’ve been at
the college more than five years, there have been full-time openings, and you haven’t
gotten an interview, it’s time to go somewhere else or look at another field.
Conversely, some of the institutions did promote from within their adjunct ranks. At
UCC, the majority of full-time faculty positions were filled by adjuncts according to the CAO.
TCC administrators acknowledged that many of their full-time appointees were former
adjuncts who they hired because they knew the institution, the culture, and the students.
However, both administrators at TCC noted that full-time positions did not become available
frequently. For example at the time of the interviews, the history department was hiring a full-
time history professor, and the opening was the first in eight or 10 years. There were 20 history
adjuncts, and no one was guaranteed the position because the search pulled from a national pool
of candidates. Furthermore, the CAO acknowledged that it could be five or more years until
another full-time position became available. “[Adjunct experience] helps them, but the
competition is so great that we could never encourage them to teach here part-time just because
it will lead to full-time.” Although longevity did not guarantee a position at TCC, most of the
full-time positions were filled by adjuncts.
131

Hanna (TCC) had experienced the negative side of hiring internally:
You are kind of like trapped because if you want to get in this field, [teaching adjunct] is
how you have to get in… I interviewed for a position here. It went to somebody who had
been here for 14 years, and that is the continuing story here. It is very, very hard to get
on……I can understand you just go, and that happens a lot. Not only that, once you get
here you find out that other people also applied for that job and were interviewed and
didn’t get it. So then you sit and wonder now what number in line does that make
me…and I come here and take this risk, am I now three down the line or how set are they
in terms of who they promote and how exactly does that work? You never know…I can
understand it, and I’ll do it briefly. But I don’t have 14 years to do it.
Whether or not the institution had a policy of internal promotion, a few adjuncts
commented that there should be some consideration in the hiring process for individuals who
were already working at the institution, as Tim and Amy’s comments confirm:
I think that’s the biggest thing. If there was one first issue to get done, I think [the
adjunct] should have priority. Just use (Amy) as an example, if you work for a big
company, they have to promote within first…I think if they want to hire, first, they need
to promote her first…weigh it on a scale, whatever, regardless if you don’t have it on a
Ph.D. (Tim, RCC)
…when it comes to full-time hiring, I think that your experience doing this job should be
considered as something in your favor. If we are good enough to be there on the firing
line with the students, why aren’t we then considered good enough to be in the full-time
position? It’s only because if you have that Ph.D. next to your name, it’s gonna look
good in the college catalog (Amy, RCC)
Administrators were aware of the adjuncts who served long-term at the institutions and
recognized the difficulty of not being able to get a full-time job. The RCC CAO believed she
was very upfront with adjuncts when hiring and told them “don’t depend on this as your
livelihood.” Furthermore, two of the administrators discussed the problems of moving from
adjunct to full-time positions. Adjuncts are usually hired from a local pool. A national search is
conducted for all full-time positions, which provides more experienced and credentialed
applicants, but UCC and TCC administrators noted the majority of full-time faculty come from
the adjunct ranks. Interestingly, three of the five administrators were adjuncts at some point in
their careers.
A number of the adjuncts discussed the importance of the “real world” experience that
adjuncts brought into the classroom. They felt work experience should play a role in the hiring
process because it provides such valuable input in the classroom. Some even believed it made
132

adjuncts, who were actually working in the field, better in the classroom than those who had
done nothing but teach in their field.
…my having been in an administrative position for a period of years, I discovered an
awful lot of people in education, and that’s all they’ve ever been…I worked on the
factory floor, and I’ve been a radio announcer also. It is a whole different ball game. I
know when I was hiring, if I had three equally qualified teachers and one had done some
kind of job other than working for McDonald’s, I’d grab him in a second because of the
perspective that he brings… Because, if I’ve got somebody who has never done anything
but work to get his degree in journalism and I [have] a chance to hire a working reporter,
I will grab that reporter in a second. (Adam, TCC)
Not that the person who has spent all his life in education is not a good writer, or isn’t
even excellent…Certainly in any of our fields I’m sure, and certainly in mine, I’ve been
in classes with graduate student kids who are teaching about how to get a job in theatre or
on TV and haven’t got a clue, have not got a clue! (Jean, TCC)
In addition, the UCC CAO noted that often adjuncts in high tech fields were exceptional,
and the institution attempted to get as many “working” adjuncts in those areas as they could.
Moreover, Bob (TCC) explained how experience brought a distinctive form of diversity into the
classroom.
And one thing I might add, diversity within a department, and I don’t mean sex, race and
all that stuff, I mean diversity of experiences. I had an opportunity recently to look at
some these individuals and their backgrounds and what their interests [are], and you
would not believe that they are in the same place, at the same time. They are just 180
degrees apart, each one of them going around in a circle, completely different types of
people [with] different interests. [Of] course, they teach maybe history or they teach
Phys Ed., and that has some element of value. But the overall perception of department
is to look for [diversity], so they get all different types of points of view. Even the
adjuncts, they are going to focus on that because it is beyond just the teaching of a
particular discipline. It is what you bring with that discipline into the class. (Bob, TCC)
Administrators agreed that the adjunct faculty brought a great deal of diversity of experience to
the classroom.
In the recruitment process, there was dissatisfaction with the interview process. An
example is Hanna (TCC). Both she and her husband had interviewed for full-time position at the
institution. She discussed the cost to come to the institution for an interview only to find out they
were not really being considered for the job. As her comments indicate below, she was
frustrated and aggravated by the institution’s practice:
133

…[what] is frustrating is…where they have these committees and they pull these people
in from all across the country when they know very well who they are going to give the
position to because they are sitting right there at the college…They should have some
kind of honesty …because I’ve taken trips all over the place. Sometimes they pay
nothing. Sometimes they pay the whole thing…To bring you in [for an interview], and
after the fact you find out, the person they [hired] is right there [at the institution]…I’m
not sure what the answer is. I’m just saying that it is really frustrating being on that other
side when you are having to finance their national search in a way… The other thing I do
want to say is this institution did not pay anything to have us come and interview. If
they’re bringing people in here, they should pay. [My husband and] I had to use our own
resources to get us here, two people, and both jobs went to people that were here. That’s
okay, but what I’m saying is [that] all the other institutions I’ve interviewed with have
paid something…You’re talking a plane ticket, car rental, and hotel…It adds up.
All of these issues affected the adjuncts’ levels of satisfaction with the recruitment
process. Most did not mind the extensive process to be hired, but many felt that the institutions
should be frank about where the position could lead.
Orientation/Training. Another area discussed by adjuncts was the orientation they
received, including any training. All three institutions required the adjuncts to attend an
orientation, but the institutions did not necessarily enforce the policy.
Orientation at all the institutions was limited. Most were set up as a meeting where basic
information was disbursed. Adjuncts did not have much opportunity to meet others at these
sessions, and often, they found the material not useful and redundant. Additionally, according to
those interviewed, none of the adjuncts were paid for the sessions they attended. For
informational purposes, all the institutions provided a handbook for adjuncts. These adjunct
manuals provided procedure and policy information as well as information reviewed at the one
to two hour orientation sessions.
At TCC if the adjunct was unable to attend the orientation, s/he was given a one-on-one
by one of the Deans or faculty coordinators. Brad’s experience with orientation was one-on-one.
They brought me in and showed me where the classroom was, showed me all the A/V
stuff – gave me a mini-tour – here’s the copier, here’s this, here’s that, here’s that, here’s
your books, use this room, there’s that room, that kind of stuff. So that was okay, and the
adjunct almost has to do [orientation] that way, one–on-one because I think it would be
almost impossible to get all your adjunct faculty together at one given time, unless you
did it an hour before the first class or something like that.
134

In addition to the mandatory sessions, adjuncts at UCC were required to watch a 3-video
series on teaching produced by the college. Adjuncts were given a faculty handbook and other
information about the institution.
One of the most interesting orientation stories was told by Jean (TCC). When she began
as an adjunct, she did not have an orientation, but after a two year hiatus to have a baby, she was
required to attend a session and watch a video on how to be a successful adjunct.
…the real kick in the pants was who do you think wrote the script for [video]? Me, and
I’m watching it! And some of the actors who are in it are people I hired [be]cause I
didn’t do the whole video or didn’t do the close production of it but segments…It was too
much to bear. It was funny… At this particular time, the movement was to try to
coalesce the adjuncts to try to have some kind of continuum or something. So [we] go in
the conference room and watch this videotape.
The only overtly positive opinion on orientation was from Bill, an 18 year adjunct at
UCC. He felt his department provided a thorough orientation for adjuncts. Adjunct faculty were
included with full-time faculty in the meeting, which he believed created a welcoming
atmosphere to adjuncts.
The majority of the opinions were that the sessions were not very useful, and the training
was limited. At TCC, Adam and Dan discussed the poor quality of orientation, as Dan explains
below:
They have [orientation] at TCC, and of course, I get a bad case of poor mouth when I talk
about it because I, frankly, believe it is no good…First, they put you in a room, which is
10 times too big. It’s an auditorium…They did just what they shouldn’t have done; they
put it in the biggest room on campus. It ought to be in [a] room where you can get to
know people, and you don’t have that many people show up anyway… They have a
string of speakers who come along and talk about all kinds of stuff …but I don’t know
who the people are. If they are adjuncts like you people and you told me what you told
me tonight, I wouldn’t know anything about you, but it is not a good meeting. There is
no orientation for the people I work with at the Social Sciences.
At UCC, Suzi described her initial training as “not clear…very fuzzy.” Ellie (UCC) and Cara
(TCC), both experienced teachers, were given no training by the institution. They had to rely on
their previous experience and questions to other faculty to “learn the ropes.” Chris (UCC)
received no orientation or training. He stated, “I don’t know, but I had not one single meeting
with other faculty…I don’t know how people coming…out here for the first time, how good an
orientation they have for them.”
135

The CAO at RCC admitted that the orientation could be improved, but the administrators
at UCC and TCC felt it was working well. Overall, the adjuncts felt that the orientation and
training was dissatisfactory at all three institutions, with a few exceptions.
Integration. Integration of adjuncts into the institutions varied, and the desires of the
adjuncts to be involved at their respective institutions varied greatly too. Some of the adjuncts
were very interested in being an integral part of the faculty and department, as Jean and Hanna
indicate in their discussions below:
There is something inside of you. I don’t know if it is some altruistic something. I
would love to be an integral part of a successful team, not a showboater but because you
have something legitimate and valuable as much as anybody else to contribute. And
mostly they know that. The faculty in the community colleges mostly rivals the ones in
universities. There is no onus anymore. It is not called a junior college anymore. I
found at [TCC] and other smaller colleges or community colleges, they’re very fastidious
about getting good faculty because they’re trying to eradicate that whole misperception
that this is a lesser school. (Jean, TCC)
As much as they want to include me, I want to be included. They asked me to come to
one of their meetings [be]cause I had experience at other community colleges, and they
were talking about going to two different levels as opposed to one level, and so I went
and met with full-timers. I appreciated that opportunity. It was nice of them to [include
me]…I think [that] was special. (Hanna, TCC, concerning sitting on committees)
Others appreciated the fact that they had complete autonomy and were not encumbered
by the politics and functions of full-time faculty. As previously mentioned, Dave (UCC) liked
not being involved in the bureaucracy of the institution. Ray (UCC) really enjoyed not having to
attend meetings, and Dan (TCC) liked the freedom and autonomy being part-time brought him.
None of the institutions required adjuncts to participate in faculty meetings or sit on
committees. All three invited adjuncts to participate and give their input, especially at the
departmental and program level. Also, invitations were extended to the adjuncts for all campus
events.
In discussing integration, several of the adjuncts talked about the use of mentors at the
institutions. Mentors were usually full-time faculty.
RCC did not have a mentor program in place for adjuncts. The administrators felt that
the chairs and full-time faculty were there to answer questions and assist the adjuncts.
TCC had a mentoring program in place that utilized full-time faculty. The mentoring
policy was handed down from Academic Affairs, but implementation of the policy was the
136

esponsibility of each area head. Each adjunct was assigned a full-time partner who served as a
mentor to assist the adjunct. The mentor was also responsible for visiting and observing the
class and helping with the evaluation process.
UCC also provided mentors for the adjuncts, which is organized at the program level.
Experienced faculty were paired with adjuncts, at least through the first semester an adjunct was
teaching. The mentors were there to answer questions and stay in communication with the
adjunct.
Some departments assigned a full-time faculty member to an adjunct. At her adjunct
orientation, Nancy (TCC) was given a mentor that she could call. Although not limited to that
person, she could call her designated individual for assistance and questions. Her “mentor”
never contacted her. Cara (TCC) was given a “full-time faculty partner” who was supposed to
come and sit in on one of her classes. It was more for evaluation than mentoring, at least to
Cara.
Suzi (UCC) connected with a full-time faculty member through a chance meeting.
Although not “school-appointed,” Suzi’s mentor answered most of her questions and gave her
guidance. She felt she would have been completely lost without this individual.
A number of the adjuncts, such as Rita (RCC), felt they had no need for a mentor. Hanna
(TCC) said, “They’re there if you need them.” At TCC, Brad noted that he had not had any
formal mentoring, but he felt the support staff and full-time faculty were there if one needed
questions answered or assistance in any way.
A second component of integration is professional development. Professional
development varied at each institution, and none of the institutions required any ongoing training
from their adjuncts. Pursuant to state requirements, each school had a staff development fund
that was 2% of the budget, which could be used for travel and professional development. At
each institution, adjuncts had access to that fund. On rare occasions, an adjunct would be
granted money to attend a conference or travel, but the institutions most often used the funds to
provide on-campus workshops. There were no special rewards given to adjuncts.
RCC encouraged and welcomed adjunct faculty to participate in committee meetings, but
attendance was not required and was without compensation. Interestingly, the administrator
noted that some adjuncts attended faculty meetings more regularly than full-time faculty. The
137

administrator felt that RCC provided an atmosphere where adjuncts were welcome to give their
input.
In addition to the travel money available to a limited number of full- and part-time
faculty, TCC provided workshops for adjuncts and paid them to attend. “$15 is not a lot of
money, but at least it is an acknowledgement.” The workshops ranged from how to grade to
using new technology in the classroom. Workshops were not required and did not affect hiring.
The CAO noted that adjuncts were involved with extracurricular activities offered by the
departments and helped on committees, but they were usually looking for full-time positions.
UCC utilized the funds for workshops and campus-based programs to better provide for
all adjuncts and faculty. Faculty could use it to attend local conferences also, but the funds were
rarely used for travel. The funds were available to part- and full-time faculty.
When discussing awards, the TCC CAO informed the researcher that the faculty had
decided not to have a faculty recognition program because “they have this concept that they are
all good, and they all do a good job, and they don’t like singling each other out.” The CAO had
tried to change the attitude, but she was not very successful. However, if an adjunct (or any
faculty member) did something exceptional, the supervising Dean sent a letter to the CAO
acknowledging the work. In turn, the CAO would send the individual a thank you note.
UCC had an internal newsletter where adjuncts were recognized for their
accomplishments. The newsletter provided for some type of recognition.
Another facet of integration is socialization. Among administrators, socialization
discussion was limited. The TCC administrator mentioned that adjuncts were invited to all
social events offered by the department or institutions, but there were a limited number of such
events. The adjuncts at RCC did not discuss socialization other than they were not readily
available to participate in functions. TCC and UCC did have some socialization opportunities.
Adjuncts received notices of faculty or departmental functions or parties, either from the
faculty bulletin boards or flyers in their mailboxes. Often, they were invited to functions such as
luncheons, birthday parties, and baby showers for individuals in the department, but due to their
schedules, they were not always available to participate. As Jean (TCC) pointed out, “This
[focus group] is one of the first adjunctorial things that I have ever done.”
Adam’s department at TCC provided some unique opportunities for adjuncts:
138

We had somebody in our department, I don’t know how she got in it, whether she just did
it because she felt the need, but we actually had an adjunct group for a year, and it sort of
withered away—disappeared…Our department picks up some things; we do some things
that other departments don’t. Like during the regular academic year, once a month, if
you are there during the day, we have a department lunch. I can tell you right now that’s
our lead secretary. She is the miracle worker when it comes to that… It’s hard to build,
and it’s hard to do that especially with mobile faculty. No matter when you have it, some
are going to be teaching and can’t come, but that is one time when you can sort of kick
back. I enjoy it more when you go and there is somebody who wants to talk about
something other then teaching.
As his statements show, a department that makes an effort to provide socialization opportunities
for their adjuncts can help improve their satisfaction level.
Scheduling conflicts were not the only reason adjuncts did not attend social functions.
Ellie indicated that many adjuncts did not know anyone in the department, which made it
difficult for them to participate, even if they had time.
In addition, Ellie (UCC) discussed some of the issues of integration felt by day
instructors versus evening instructors. She had worked as both and felt it was important to make
the effort to attend campus and faculty functions:
It is always more fun if I could go. It’s always…made the whole picture fill out better if
I could go to things, outside of just go[ing] to my classroom and teach. For instance,
there are student government sponsored activities outdoors every month or two with a
free lunch for students and faculty and various activities, and I have always tried to get to
those. I just liked the atmosphere, and I liked feeling that, like part of a real campus.
Even though there is not a lot of campus life, there is some. I feel that comes out in those
daytime events. So even when I wasn’t around here in the daytime, if I knew something
like that was happening, I would try to get over for a half hour or forty-five minutes just
to maybe see a couple of students or a couple of people I know and have a little lunch
with them.
The final facet of integration is representation. All three institutions were non-union, but
faculty had representation in the form of a Faculty Senate. RCC had two adjunct representatives
elected by the adjuncts with full representation on the senate faculty. However, there were no
adjunct positions on institutional committees.
At TCC, there was a strong and influential Faculty Senate. There was adjunct
representation on the senate in the form of a voice, but they had no vote. Adjuncts were not
included on institutional committees, but they sat on department committees to provide input.
139

They were also invited to division meetings where they were welcome to offer suggestions and
input.
In discussing collective bargaining, the TCC CAO acknowledged that it would definitely
influence the budgeting.
Most likely it would impact financial and benefits; that is what [adjuncts] want most. If
we incorporate that into the package, we just have to cut down on some other things we
do in the institution. It would be restructuring of financial [areas]. It may restrict the
number of classes we offer because we can’t do it. I don’t know [what the impact would
be].
At UCC, adjuncts had very little voice. There was no representation in the Faculty
Senate. The UCC administrator admitted that because program directors are often very reliant
on their adjuncts, they provide a voice for them when necessary.
Satisfaction with Evaluations
All three institutions required some type of evaluation for the adjuncts. The main source
of feedback for all the adjuncts was the student evaluations.
At RCC, the faculty coordinators monitored the adjuncts, and periodic classroom
evaluations were done if necessary. The student evaluation was the focal point for adjuncts’
feedback. Occasionally, a department chair would visit the classroom, but as Rita pointed out,
this practice was rare. “He doesn’t have a clue how I teach.”
Tina was concerned that the limited feedback at RCC could impact the quality of
teaching. As a former school teacher, she compared methods of evaluation:
There is also very little recognition or feedback of any kind. As a public school teacher, I
enjoyed an excellent reputation as a teacher and felt that my principal valued my work as
a teacher. Here, I have been told by my students that they have learned a tremendous
amount in my class, and that is the only feedback that I have. I feel that no one at the
college knows or cares about the job I am doing. I do an excellent job because of my
personal work ethic and integrity, not because of any interaction with anyone at the
college… they did have us do a student evaluation for the fall? I’m surprised they didn’t
have us do one for the spring. I did get the feedback from the students from the Fall. I
did get some informal feedback. I had to talk to the Dean. He talked to the high school
and he said they were very complimentary, but I’ve not had anyone visit my class or give
me feedback on my teaching in the classroom… If I were a student, I would wonder
about quality control with adjuncts. If you have someone who doesn’t care with the lack
of monitoring and feedback, how would they know? I just wonder about others, seeing
the lack of supervision. Not that I feel there needs to be a lot of supervision, I just
wonder about any type of quality control.
140

Although a few adjuncts, such as Amy, expressed some nervousness with being visited by
faculty or department chairs, overall the adjuncts desired better feedback and recognition from
their departments.
As with RCC, the main source of evaluation at TCC was from the students. In addition,
evaluations were done each semester by the Dean or Program chair with meetings afterwards to
discuss teaching techniques and materials. Also, adjuncts were paired with a full-time faculty.
Although the pairing was for mentoring purposes, the faculty member observed and wrote up a
report on the adjunct. Adjunct and mentor would sign off on it and send it to the Division Chair
for review and signature. All evaluations were kept in the permanent file of the adjunct.
Evaluations by another faculty member were supposed to be done once a semester, no
less than once a year, but these evaluations were not consistent. Nancy’s evaluator stayed the
entire class period, while Lisa’s stayed for five minutes. Cara and Reba had interesting
experiences with their evaluations by full-time faculty, which draws into question the real
validity of the evaluation. Nevertheless, both acknowledged the value of having someone
conduct a thorough evaluation:
…we each have a “full-time faculty partner” who is suppose to…come in and sit in one
of our classes…It’s supposed to be helpful, but, in fact, it is evaluative. I mean there is
no attempt to improve your teaching. It is a pure evaluative kind of thing as I see it…
We have to sign [the evaluation]… I guess I really don’t [think that it helps with
teaching]…Well, the woman that evaluated me last year came the last day of the semester
when I was doing nothing but cleaning up and getting ready for finals…and she said,
“well I know you are a good teacher,” so she brought a stack of papers and she was
grading and sat in my class for an hour… The guy that is going to do me again this year,
when he evaluated me, [he] got me mixed me up with another person…He was supposed
to do it first semester, but he never made it to my class first semester. So then he came in
second semester, but it was so long between the time that he actually filled out the form
and the time he had been to my class, he got me confused with another person. And he
said something about “you gave this lecture on such and such,” and I said, “I didn’t give
that lecture. That’s not even a chapter that is on syllabus you know.” But he didn’t
change what was on the paper that he wrote about me… I’m not sure [if evaluations are
used for rehiring purposes]. They stay on file, and I know other faculty can go look at it
[be]cause that is another thing [that] happened to me one time. A person came, and he
fell asleep in my class. So he went and he looked to see what other people in previous
years had said about me and student evaluations, and he wrote his form…, but he told me
he did it, based on what other people had said and what my student evaluations were
like…It’s kind of hard to say [if] I’m getting positive feedback from those, you know, if
they’re treating it like it’s a joke… I have had a couple of people … who took it seriously
and who were good and who made some constructive criticisms. (Cara, TCC)
141

Last semester I was assigned to a full-time faculty member that [had] already observed
me. And he just said, “I know how you teach. I’m not going to come,” and he got away
with it…They just let it be. But I have been observed every semester I was here. They
try to arrange the schedules so that a full-time faculty member that does not have a
conflict can come in [and] observe your classes, and they give you a report, and I file
every one of them along with my student reports. It’s helpful because you get
suggestions, and they ask questions. Once you get use to it, it is just not threatening as
long as you recognize it, everybody is assigned a full-time faculty, and that’s the way it
is…If it were negative, I think it would [affect employment] because if they see
something that they feel you should improve, they just tell you, or they make
suggestions…I think it is very helpful. I wish I had that when I was still in graduate
school, but they didn’t do that cause not all graduate programs have something in place.
(Reba, TCC)
However, there was a feeling that the departments really did not know what the adjuncts were
doing in the classroom or how well they actually taught, as Jean (TCC) explained:
… They do not have a clue what I do. They hear great things. They assume that I’m
doing wonderful stuff, and, of course, I tell them I am, and they believe me. But they
don’t know. They haven’t got a clue. I mean, they trust me. What do they trust, my
academic record? My degrees or such like that?...Sometimes they come in to view, to sit
with you, as they have to do…a lot of times people who are sitting in to observe are
people that I have taught, who teach here full time now.
According to the administrators, if problems were detected through student evaluations or
observations, conferences were set with the adjuncts, and the problem areas were addressed.
The administrators noted that the evaluations could affect future employment adversely if the
problems continued and could not be resolved.
As with RCC & TCC, student evaluations were UCC’s main source of feedback on the
adjuncts’ teaching. Most of the adjuncts felt that the student evaluations were an excellent source
of feedback. They believed it provided them with information that would improve their teaching
skills:
And I feel here I’d far prefer to be evaluated by the students that I deal with on a daily
basis than anybody in the department… the program director, after the first three weeks,
said that she had spoken to a number of students and that the feedback was very positive,
that she had checked me out. (Suzi, UCC)
[The program chair] used student feedback sheets that were evaluations that students
filled out in the middle of the semester. She would present them as an evaluation during
the following semester, and that served for me, time after time, as a kind of training
because I would look at the graph and at the sheets that students had said what they felt I
142

excelled at or what they felt could have been better. I would try to respond to that.
(Ellie, UCC)
According to the UCC CAO, evaluations were given by program directors at UCC. After
a class visit where a feedback form was utilized, the program director and adjunct would meet to
discuss any problems that needed to be addressed. Faculty did not perform evaluations of
adjuncts, but student evaluations were reviewed by the program director with the adjunct. As
with the other institutions, there was a feeling of inconsistency with the evaluations conducted
by the programs, as Chris expressed:
The college runs hot and cold on [classroom evaluation]. Sometimes they really get
down on the program chairs, get in those classes, find out what they are doing, and selfevaluate
them on a piece of paper so you knew exactly what they’re doing inside their
classroom. Then they will go for years without doing any. So it is totally inconsistent…
I had a conference with my program director, but it was sort of talking about the course
and how I plan to teach it and all that kind of good stuff. Maybe that was an evaluation.
I don’t know, but it was at the very beginning [of the semester]. (Chris, UCC)
Although feedback from students was appreciated by most, Jill (UCC) felt students were
not the best individuals to evaluate an instructor and provide constructive criticism.
I will tell you something that bothers me, (and it does not apply just to adjuncts, it’s fulltime
teachers too, except that they have a more concrete position in what they’re doing,)
and that’s the evaluations. I don’t know what the format is of the evaluations anyplace
else, but evaluations are handed out to the students, except for the summertime. The two
semesters, Fall and Spring, and whoever it is, no one knows. Actually we do know when
you finally get to see them, “I know who wrote that.” …Students, I would say, are not
going to be supremely objective on these evaluations, and the evaluations boil down to
the decisions that the students make not on the course so much, but I think on the
teacher…Students can come up with the most outrageous opinions and things on these
evaluations that have nothing to do with what you were teaching [or] with what you
weren’t teaching… That’s one of my irritations is [student] evaluations. Get rid of
them… I can tell you in all the years that I’ve been an adjunct teacher I have been
observed twice…That should happen more often.
All three institutions provided student evaluations each semester, but there was a definite
inconsistency in evaluations conducted by the departments, programs, or full-time faculty.
Largely, the adjuncts seemed to prefer more feedback from their departments or programs of
study. Overall, the issues with the evaluation process negatively affected the satisfaction of the
faculty.
143

Satisfaction with Other Jobs and Roles
In the study, adjuncts were asked about how satisfied they were with other jobs and roles
in their lives, and most participants were satisfied. This was applicable across all three
institutions, as the following comments illustrate:
It doesn’t really cause a conflict for me. I have it scheduled so that it’s not really
conflicting. (Jen, RCC, full-time mom)
This aspect is the most satisfying part of being an adjunct for me. I have much more
personal free time and more time with my daughters and husband. I am also more able to
help my husband in his business. It’s flexible. (Tina, RCC, full-time mother)
All my part-time jobs—yeah it works out. I’ve been here for a while so usually I get
kind of like a choice of what classes I want to teach or what times I want to teach. (Cara,
TCC, other part-time jobs)
I have a good supervisor back where I work full-time. Because we have flex hours that
means I can do what I’m doing now [be]cause I teach Tuesday, Thursday 1:25 to 2:40
and that’s between regular office hours. But my section where I work, you can do flex
hours… I can go back to my supervisor in my full-time job and tell her I don’t want my
half days on Tuesday no more, I want my half days on Thursday because I have to be
here, and she will say “okay.” (Eden, full-time job)
They compliment each other. You learn about different companies and how different
people are doing things. It’s a real connection. (Dave, UCC, full-time job)
Satisfaction with Being an Adjunct
When questioned about their satisfaction as adjunct instructors, there were mixed
responses. On the positive side, Dan (TCC) was “totally delighted with teaching adjunct.” Bob
(TCC) enjoyed the fact that he could take a semester off if he desired.
There were several who were dissatisfied as adjuncts. Hanna (TCC) believed her
institution used an excessive amount of adjuncts. “That could be just my disgruntled opinion. I
think they need more full-time people, and they just are not creating the positions.”
Although Tina (RCC) was only interested in part-time work at the time, she was
dissatisfied with her position because her treatment made her feel like a “second-class citizen.”
I feel that my status as an adjunct is not very satisfying. I feel that my status does not
reflect my real responsibilities in teaching or my true abilities. Adjuncts are second-class
citizens at RCC. For example, we are not allowed to use the copy machine in our schools
(full-time faculty can)…Another example is the faculty discount…I asked and was told
that adjunct faculty cannot use the discounts. I found that to be offensive. For one thing,
144

the adjuncts make so little money teaching! We are performing a valuable service for the
college, and they can’t even let us have a faculty discount like everyone else? While the
adjunct position is useful for me at this point in my life, I also feel that it is exploitative.
Stuff like copy machines is silly. It really annoys me. (Tina, RCC)
Moreover, adjuncts realized there were trade-offs to being an adjunct:
It is not about being unhappy or anything. It’s about yeah, I do this ,and I’m gonna to do
it when I leave here, and I’m going to like what I do. (Jean, TCC)
This doesn’t mean you are 100% happy. You never will be. You trade one set of
disadvantages and advantages for another set. I can get a lot of congeniality on that
assembly line but I didn’t choose to do that. That doesn’t mean I won’t bitch about the
disadvantages that came with this job, but there [were] some that came on that one too.
(Adam, TCC)
Suzi (UCC), who taught nights at another institution, felt the adjunct position was very
lonely. “You never see any staff member…I never talk to anybody. You really don’t know if
you’re on the right track, and there’s nobody there to even chat with.”
Finally, Ellie (UCC) summed up the notion of part-time work while discussing her
satisfaction as an adjunct:
…I could say I don’t feel undervalued by anyone except the system. I feel that every
individual I work with is treating me fairly and with respect…I think it is the structure
and again it’s the American workplace. Part-time people have not achieved the official
and paid status of full-time people. It is just a structural problem I hope changes. There
should be more job sharing I think; that is more a political view.
Hanna (TCC) had a very unique perspective on being an adjunct. As she mentioned
previously, there was nothing that she liked about teaching part-time. Hanna came from a
background as a full-time instructor in the community college. She had approximately 13 years
experience as a full-time faculty, but she could not find a position at TCC.
A lot of it is, do they choose to be there, or do they feel like they have to be there? And
that is something to consider…But it is an interesting perspective, you know, having sat
on the other side of the fence and quite comfortable and secure position, had tenure, the
whole thing, and now seeing what it’s like doing adjunct, I really feel poor. You know,
I’ve seen specials on TV about people that do this, and it is just terrible. And a lot of
places are much worse than [us]. I have an office. I have a telephone. I have a
computer. People in a lot of places do it on the back seat of their car. They meet with
students out in the parking lot. This is a horrendous kind of thing that you hear
complaints about all across the country with people that are struggling to get on full-time
or re-piece it together with adjuncts. We have a lot of real good things here that I find
were better than the last place I was at. The last place they had one little office for
145

adjuncts, and when they came they had to put all their stuff in there if nobody was there
and try to meet with students. If there were 3 or 4 people, it’s impossible. Here, I have
my own little cubbyhole and a lot of nice things, but just looking at it from having been
in the other position too and seeing this now is really interesting to me. (Hanna, TCC)
Overall Satisfaction
As mentioned at the beginning of this section on job satisfaction, most of the adjuncts
were teaching because they enjoyed it. They endured many of the dissatisfactions that come
with part-time teaching because they were doing something they loved, and they had high levels
of commitment. As Amy (UCC) stated:
Actually, I really am satisfied to a degree…I could get some kind of a job that would pay
much better and get those benefits, but I would have to be in an office eight hours a day
surrounded by other people, and I’ve never been able to succeed at that. Whereas
teaching at this level, it’s something that I do feel like I have been successful with.
Being part-time fit well into Lisa’s (TCC) plans, “I’m interested in family and slowing down, so
I’m satisfied with what I’m doing right now.”
The adjuncts, who expressed lower levels of satisfaction, usually had a specific reason,
such as Ellie (UCC) who really needed the medical benefits of a full-time position. Also, Rita
(UCC) was dissatisfied with her current situation because she enjoyed teaching so much she
wanted to go full-time as soon as she could. As she stated, “So to be honest with you, I’m not
real satisfied right now [be]cause I know what I want, and at this point, I can’t get it.”
As demonstrated by the responses to job satisfaction and its many facets, there are a
variety of levels and reasons that affect each individual. Furthermore, job satisfaction is tied into
the adjuncts perceptions and experiences, which is addressed in research question four.
Perceptions and Experiences
Research Question 4: Are there differences in the perceptions or experiences of the community
college part-time faculty studied?
The experiences of the part-time faculty members were often reflected in their
perceptions of the institutions, colleagues, and themselves. They came from varied education,
ethnic, and work backgrounds as discussed in the section on demographics. As far as
institutional experiences, each institution had a continuum of adjuncts that were very happy with
their experiences to those who were extremely unhappy.
146

Job Satisfaction Taxonomy
When analyzing the data through the job satisfaction lens, the most noted differences in
perceptions and experiences throughout the institutions were whether or not the individual was
financially dependent on the position for either income or benefits or both. Based on this
observation, the researcher created a taxonomy that divides the participants into three groups:
Dependents, Interims, and Stables.
Dependents. Dependents were teaching because they needed income and many needed
the benefits, too. Also, teaching as an adjunct was the primary, if not sole, source of income.
Their perceptions were influenced significantly by their need for money or need for a full-time
position with benefits. During the focus groups, the researcher and assistant moderators agreed
the overriding factor in satisfaction levels was dependency on income. Moreover, Dependents
believed that their compensation indicated how the institution appreciated and respected them as
teachers, and their self-worth was often tied into their compensation. Finally, most of the
adjuncts, who fell into this category, were searching for full-time positions. Repeatedly, they
were the individuals who had the most complaints. Also, they expressed their dissatisfaction
most vehemently, especially when discussing their compensation and benefits.
Stables. Stables were adjuncts who had other sources of income either from a full-time
job, their spouses, retirement, or other ventures, which provided financial stability. Stables
seemed to be much more satisfied with every aspect of being an adjunct. Although there was
general discontent with the level of pay, individuals who had other sources of income expressed
far less concern about their compensation, but many were very concerned about their colleagues
who were dependent on their part-time salary. None of the Stables were interested in full-time
positions.
Interims. Interims included the remainder of the individuals, most of who were in
transitional phases in their life. They may or may not have had other sources of income, but
their positions as adjuncts were only temporary. All of the graduate students were included in
this category.
The three categories of the job taxonomy can overlap. Also, when compared to
Tuckman’s (1978), Biles and Tuckman’s (1986) and Gappa and Leslie’s (1993) taxonomies, the
job taxonomy would incorporate each in the following manner: Dependents would encompass
Tuckman’s hopeful full-timers and part-mooners, Biles and Tuckman’s twighlighters, and Gappa
147

and Leslie’s aspiring academics and freeway fliers. Interims would include Tuckman’s graduate
students and part-unknowners and Gappa and Leslie’s freelancers. Finally, Stables would
include Tuckman’s semiretireds, full-mooners, and homeworkers, Biles & Tuckman’s
moonlighters, sunlighters, and person on occasional part-time leave, and Gappa and Leslie’s
career enders and specialists, experts, and professionals.
Institutional Influences and Policies
Research Question 5: What are the institutional influences and policies affecting the use of part-
time faculty at the community colleges studied?
Many of the institutional policies have been discussed previously. The following is a
discussion of institutional and non-institutional policies affecting adjunct faculty.
Institutional Polices
Minimum Education Requirements. All three institutions had minimum education
requirements of a Master’s degree with 18 hours in the subject field, which adhered to the
SACS’ accreditation requirements (see below). Adjuncts who had only a Bachelor’s degree
were limited to teaching college prep classes.
Maximum Load and Faculty-Adjunct Ratios. At RCC, full-time faculty loads
consisted of 15 credit hours, and they are required to be on campus 33 hours with 10 of those
hours established as office hours. The administrator noted that all full-time faculty taught
overload courses and were paid at the same rate as adjuncts for their overload classes. Adjuncts
usually taught nine hours, with a maximum of 11 hours per semester. In addition, RCC limited
the number of hours adjuncts could teach at other institutions.
According to the RCC CAO, the full-time faculty to part-time faculty ratio was 65:35.
The other administrator noted that his division’s ratio was approximately 60:40, which could be
attributed to the subjects offered in his division.
The maximum load for adjuncts at TCC was nine hours, with a minimum number of
students. The full-time faculty load was 15 hours. According to the TCC administrator, full-
time faculty taught three to four classes based on a loading formula, which included the number
of class preps and students each faculty member had. They were also required to serve on both
divisional and institutional committees and advise students for at least 30 hours a semester. The
full-time to part-time faculty ratio was 60:40, which varied between departments, but the goal of
148

the institution was to reach a 70:30 ratio.
UCC based their loads on Equated Credit Hours (ECH) and limited adjuncts to 12 ECH’s
per session, which are roughly three to four courses. If the individual is working full time in
another job, s/he is limited to six ECH. This limitation also applies to full-time faculty who are
teaching classes beyond their full-time load. The only way for individual to exceed the limit is
through presidential approval. UCC had a 65:35 ratio of full-time to part-time faculty. The ideal
goal for the institution was 70:30.
Outside Employment Limitations. RCC and UCC limited the amount of hours an
adjunct could teach when working outside the institution. Outside employment did not affect
adjuncts at TCC.
Vacation and Sick Leave. None of the institutions gave any form of vacation or sick
leave to adjuncts. Furthermore, all three required that adjuncts, who had to miss a class, find a
substitute for the class, and they were docked for the time missed according to their hourly rate.
Retirement Plans. All three institutions gave adjuncts some form of alternative social
security. None of the institutions contributed to these plans. Adjuncts were not eligible for the
retirement plans offered to full-time faculty.
Support and Access. All the institutions provided support to the adjuncts in the form of
word processing services, audio-visual needs, supplies, and copying services. In addition, all
institutions provided parking and library privileges.
Office Space and Hours. All adjuncts were required to hold offices hours, but each
institution handled them differently. RCC and UCC allowed adjuncts to hold office hours before
and after class in the classrooms. TCC adjuncts were required to hold one office hour for each
class, and they also required adjuncts to post their office hours with the department and adhere to
the posted schedule.
Other perks or benefits. RCC and TCC adjuncts were able to take classes for free.
Tuition was not offered at UCC. However, UCC offered special discounts to theme parks to
their adjuncts.
Non-institutional Influences and Policies
SACS. The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools is the accrediting body for the
149

southern region of the United States including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia and also for Latin
American postsecondary institutions. The association is responsible for the accreditation and
monitoring of the institutions it oversees. Furthermore, it reports regularly on the accreditation
status of institutions under its umbrella. Information on SACS and the principles of
accreditation to which it adheres can be found at the SACS website.
For most programs and areas of studies, both part- and full-time faculty must have a
minimum level of education. The minimum level is a Master’s degree and 18 graduate hours in
the subject field. There are exceptions for some professional, occupational, and technical
programs. In addition, exceptions may be made for faculty who have exceptional skills and
experience in place of the education, but each individual, who does not meet the minimum
requirements, must be justified by the institution (SACS, 2000).
State Law. Title XLVIII of the Florida Statutes establishes the law that governs the K-
20 education system. The statutes cover from the state-level of governance, the State Board of
Education, down to the institutional level, the Board of Trustees. The areas that deal specifically
with community colleges include Chapter 1001, Part III and Chapter 1004, Part III.
The State Board of Education sets minimum standards for the state universities and
community colleges. It also submits a K-20 budget yearly to the Florida Legislature for all areas
of supervision including the Department of Education, the Commissioner of Education, and all
of the boards, institutions, agencies, and services. In addition to the statutes, Chapter 6A-14 and
6H-1 of the Florida Administrative Code gives a more detailed description of how the
community colleges are to be run based on interpretation from the Florida Statutes.
FLCCS. The FLCCS oversees the 28 institutions in the state of Florida. Concerning
adjuncts, FLCCS has published guidelines. The Florida Community Colleges Guidelines and
Procedures Manual provides general guidelines to help provide a uniform policy across the 28
institutions (FLCCS, 1994). These guidelines are shown in Appendix N. The Florida Board of
Education (FLBOE) oversees the FLCCS and is authorized by the state legislature
Division of Community Colleges. The Division of Community Colleges (DCC)
develops and coordinates the policies for the FLCCS. Chancellor J. David Armstrong is the
150

head of the DCC, and it consists of three divisions: Student and Academic Success, Applied
Technology and Career Success, and Finance and Information Systems. Additional information
on the FLCCS and DCC can be found at their websites.
151

CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR
RESEARCH
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to explore the use of part-time faculty at three Florida
community colleges using a case study design. The in-depth analysis helped to describe who
serves as part-time faculty and illuminate the reasons they teach as adjuncts. In addition, the
researcher analyzed the policies in use for part-time faculty at selected community colleges in
Florida and determined how adjunct faculty are affected by these policies. Finally, within the
context of the community college, the study analyzed the job satisfaction of the adjuncts as it
pertains to job satisfaction theory and how their perceptions and experiences differed.
Synopsis of the Findings
In this study, the following research questions were addressed, and a synopsis of the
findings are included with each question:
1. What are the demographic characteristics and academic backgrounds of the part-
time faculty participants in the three community colleges studied?
In analyzing the demographics of the 26 participants the following was found: Fifty
percent of the participants were between the ages of 46 and 60. The remainder of adjuncts was
dispersed equally in the 45 or below categories and the 61 and above categories. The gender
breakdown was 62% women and 38% men, and 77% of the participants were white. All but two
adjuncts had their Master’s degree, and five held doctoral degrees. Fields of study ranged from
mathematics to remedial level reading with more than 10 fields of study represented. There was
a combined total of 170 years of adjunct teaching experience with a mean number of years of
eight. Eleven participants worked only as part-time instructors, and nine of the participants
worked full-time outside of teaching. The remaining adjuncts worked as part-time instructors
152

with additional part-time jobs. Thirty-eight percent of the adjuncts were pursuing full-time
positions, and 15% had other career aspirations; the remaining 47% were content with working
as part-time faculty.
2. What are the reasons for teaching part-time of the faculty participants in the three
community colleges studied?
Numerous reasons were given by the participants for teaching part-time. Some of the
most discussed reasons included the following: love of teaching, employed full-time outside the
institution, seeking full-time position, desired experience, wanted part-time only position, liked
the flexibility, needed income, enjoyed working with students, enjoyed the community college
environment, and derived great personal satisfaction from teaching.
3. What are the job satisfactions and dissatisfactions of the part-time faculty in the
three community colleges studied?
There seemed to be a high level of satisfaction with teaching itself and with teaching
students at the institutions. Satisfaction with the institutions varied with dissatisfaction usually
resulting from the level of pay and number of classes they could teach. Nearly all of the
participants had high levels of satisfaction with the full-time faculty they encountered. However,
satisfaction with other adjuncts was lower because many of the adjuncts had little or no
interaction with other adjuncts. One of the highest levels of satisfaction came with support
faculty, the office assistants and secretaries. Most of the adjuncts were satisfied with the
department administrators, but there were a few who were very unhappy with their superiors.
Satisfaction with office facilities varied. Many of the adjuncts did not feel they needed an office
space. Dissatisfaction was the highest in those who were looking for a full-time position and
wanted to be more integrated into the institution.
Recruitment, orientation, and integration could all be improved according to the
participants. Adjuncts acknowledged that they had to go through an extensive process for hiring
without any guarantees for a job or any type of job security. Most of the adjuncts felt the
orientation offered by the institutions was not particularly helpful. Satisfaction with integration
often depended on whether or not the individual was interested in a full-time position. Those
who were seeking full-time teaching positions wanted greater integration. Those who were
content with their roles as adjuncts had far less interest in being integrated into the institutional
culture.
153

Among the adjuncts, dissatisfaction was the highest with compensation and benefits. For
those who were dependent on the income of the part-time position, income and benefits, to a
lesser degree, were significant motivators, and the low level of pay impacted their satisfaction
levels adversely. For those in full-time positions or with outside income sources, income served
more as a hygiene factor. All adjuncts felt they should be paid more for what they were doing.
For those who needed medical benefits, there was a high level of dissatisfaction with the lack of
benefits. For participants who were covered elsewhere, there was empathy for individuals not
covered. Almost all of the adjuncts felt that some type of benefits program should be offered to
those needing it.
Evaluation was another area where adjuncts were highly dissatisfied. Although most of
the adjuncts appreciated and utilized the student evaluations, they wanted more input from their
peers and superiors. For those who had been evaluated by a faculty or supervisor, the adjunct
often felt that the evaluation was conducted in such a way as to fulfill an obligation instead of
providing useful and constructive criticism and suggestions. Overall, the adjuncts were satisfied,
and the majority of them admitted that they would continue to teach as an adjunct even with the
problems they faced.
4. Are there differences in the perceptions or experiences of the community college
part-time faculty studied?
In analyzing the findings, the separating factor was dependency on income and the
perceived equitability of the income in respect to full-time faculty’s salaries. All part-time
faculty felt they should be paid more for what they were doing whether or not their satisfaction
level with income was high. In the discussions, the perceived equity of adjuncts’ salaries to full-
time faculties’ salaries became an issue. Also, several of the adjuncts, who were previously fine
with what they were being paid, had a significant change in the continuum when their life
circumstances changed, and they found themselves in the position of depending on the income.
Based on the findings, a job taxonomy was created that categorized adjuncts into three
distinct groups: Dependents were teaching because they needed income and many needed the
benefits, too. Also, teaching as an adjunct was the primary, if not sole, source of income. Their
perceptions were influenced significantly by their need for money or need for a full-time position
with benefits. Stables were adjuncts who had other sources of income either from a full-time
job, their spouses, retirement, or other ventures, which provided financial stability. Stables
154

seemed to be much more satisfied with every aspect of being an adjunct. Interims included the
remainder of the individuals, most of who were in transitional phases in their life.
5. What are the institutional influences and policies affecting the use of part-time
faculty at the community colleges studied?
All the institutions adhered to SACS accreditation requirements for hiring of adjuncts,
which requires a minimum of a Master’s degree with 18 hours in the subject field. Additionally,
all three institutions are governed by the Florida Statutes; Title XLVIII of the Florida Statutes
establishes the law that governs the K-20 with Chapter 1001, Part III and Chapter 1004, Part III
focusing specifically on community colleges, and Chapter 6A-14 and 6H-1 of the Florida
Administrative Code gives a more detailed description of how the community colleges are to be
run based on interpretation from the Florida Statutes. Furthermore, all three institutions adhered
to the FLCCS Guidelines established for the use of part-time faculty. Each institution
implemented these policies differently.
Some of the policies affecting adjuncts included the following: Adjuncts were required
to hold office hours at all three institutions, and the adjuncts had a designated area to hold these
office hours. In addition, they were given parking and library privileges. RCC and TCC offered
tuition waiver privileges for adjuncts who met specific requirements. RCC and UCC restricted
the number of hours an adjunct could teach if he or she had outside employment, and all three
institutions had a maximum number of hours that could be taught by adjuncts. All three
institutions had a professional development fund to which adjuncts had access.
Conceptual Framework
Job satisfaction is defined as “how people feel about their jobs and different aspects of
their jobs” (Spector, 1997, pg. 2). Spector gave three reasons for studying job satisfaction: 1)
humanitarian perspective–individuals deserve fair treatment and respect in their job; 2) utilitarian
perspective–how an individual is treated often leads to the employee’s behaviors that can affect
organizational functioning, both positively and negatively; and 3) organizational functioning–
understanding employees’ job satisfaction within various units can pinpoint troubled areas (p. 2).
Why is job satisfaction important? There can be both positive and negative ramifications
to job satisfaction that may affect job performance, employee behavior, employee physical and
psychological well-being, and life satisfaction (Spector, 1997). Understanding these
155

consequences can help organizations to provide better working environments for employees as
well as endeavor to improve employee productivity.
In early studies of job satisfaction, Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyder (1959) utilized a two
factor theory of job satisfaction, which focused on motivators and hygienes. Hygiene factors
include supervision, interpersonal relations, physical working conditions, salary, company
policies and administrative practices, benefits and job security. “When these factors deteriorate
to a level below that which the employee considers acceptable, then job dissatisfaction ensues.
However the reverse does not hold true” (p. 113). If these hygiene factors are not sufficiently
met, the result can be lower job satisfaction if not properly addressed; however, high levels of
satisfaction are not guaranteed if the hygiene factors are present (Rainey, 2001).
Herzberg et al. (1959) felt that positive job attitudes derived from an individual’s need
for self-actualization, which ties into Maslow’s (1954) hierarchy of needs. Herzberg et al.
defined these job factors as motivators. Motivators include achievement, recognition, the work
itself, responsibility, and personal growth/advancement. Although both hygienes and motivators
meet the needs of the employee, Herzberg et al. noted that motivators were the factors that
improved job satisfaction and helped to improve job performance, while satisfaction of hygiene
needs helped to prevent job dissatisfaction.
Although one would think that high job satisfaction would imply high job performance,
research shows only a moderate correlation with job performance (Iaffaldano & Muchinsky,
1985; Petty, McGee, & Cavender, 1984). Research indicates a better correlation with job
satisfaction when job performance is tied to rewards (Jacobs & Solomon, 1977). To date, a
thorough explanation of the cause of these relationships has not been determined (See Spector).
Use of part-time workers is increasing in many organizations, and the motive is usually
fiscal (Spector, 1997). Part-timers are often paid less and cost less to the employer because
benefits, such as medical and retirement, are not required, but part-time employees often do the
same work as full-time employees. Therefore, it could be concluded that part-time employees
would be less satisfied with their jobs; however, research on part-time work schedules and job
satisfaction has conflicting results.
With the continually growing population and acceptance that use of part-time faculty is
here to stay, limited research has been conducted on the job satisfaction of part-time faculty in
community colleges or any postsecondary institutions. In the limited research that has been
156

conducted, part-time faculty’s overall job satisfaction is high and often greater than full-time
faculty’s (Antony & Valadez, 1998; , Eberhardt and Shani, 1984; Gappa, 2000; Jackofsky and
Peters, 1987; Truell, et al., 1998; Tuckman, 1978; Weglarz, 1998). Also, the research supports
the belief that part-time faculty are less satisfied in specific areas such as wage differentials,
autonomy, students, co-workers, supervision, and rewards (Antony & Valadez, 1998; Feldman,
1990; Hagedorn, 1996; Miller & Terborg, 1979; Williams & Wiatrk, 1986). Furthermore, the
literature showed that these lower levels of satisfaction stemmed from the following: problems
with salary differentiation, lack of negotiating power, limited benefits, low academic status, role
ambiguity, institutional culture, lack of morale among adjuncts, and limited orientation,
integration, and professional development (Banachowski, 1996a, 1996b; Cohen, 1992; Gappa,
2000; Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Gappa & Leslie, 1997; Hagedorn, 1996; Hoerner, 1991; Jacobs,
1998; Kelly, 1991; Langenberg, 1998; McGuire, 1993; Monroe & Denham, 1991; Pollington,
1992; Roueche et al., 1995).
In analyzing job satisfaction of faculty, Hagedorn (2000a) provided a conceptual
framework. In developing the framework, she focused on mediators and triggers that lead to a
job satisfaction continuum.
“A mediator is a variable or a situation that influences (moderates) outcomes and
relationships between other variables or situations” (Hagedorn, 2000b, p. 1). The framework
included three types of mediators: motivators and hygienes, demographics, and environmental
conditions. The first mediator incorporated Herzberg’s motivators and hygienes including
achievement, recognition, work itself, responsibility, and salary. Demographics in her model
included gender, ethnicity, institutional type, and academic discipline. Finally, the
environmental conditions she evaluated were collegial relationships, student quality or
relationships, administration, and institutional climate or culture.
Triggers are the changes or transfers that occur throughout a faculty’s career. Hagedorn
included changes in the following areas as triggers: life stage, family-related or personal
circumstances, rank or tenure, institution, perceived justice, and mood or emotional state. All
of these triggers lead to a change on the job satisfaction continuum.
Hagedorn (2000b) recognized that job satisfaction runs on a continuum and has
pinpointed and labeled three specific points on the continuum: disengagement,
acceptance/tolerance, and appreciation. In her study, Hagedorn placed most of the faculty
157

somewhere between the disengagement and appreciation; they have “accepted and evolved with
their work-related roles” (p. 9). Furthermore, she found that the triggers in the study led to
certain levels of job satisfaction. Job satisfaction tended to increase with advanced life stages.
Married faculty had higher levels of job satisfaction than single, separated, or divorced faculty.
Faculty who recently changed rank or moved to a new institution had lower levels of job
satisfaction. Finally, faculty who had a higher level of perceived justice tended to have higher
job satisfaction. Hagedorn concluded that overall job satisfaction can be affected by her three
pronged model.
Theme Analysis and Interpretation
Themes identified in this research study will contribute to knowledge by providing an
understanding of the perceptions and experiences of part-time faculty at the community colleges
studied. Also, the gap between policy and practice is examined. In addition, the research study
provides an analysis of the previous research recommendations and whether or not any of the
recommendations have been implemented. Furthermore, the knowledge gained will fill part of
the gap in research concerning job satisfaction of adjuncts in the two-year institutions. Although
limited in generalizability, the findings and recommendations from this study can provide useful
information to all postsecondary institutions.
Expanding a Previous Study
Historically, community colleges have been the institutions that claim to respond quickly
and effectively to the needs of the changing environments in their service areas. With part-time
faculty at community colleges passing the 65% level, it is imperative for community colleges to
know who these individuals are, why they teach part-time, and how their status as “invisible
faculty” can improve. Furthermore, having a better understanding of the demographics,
characteristics, and reasons for teaching of part-time faculty will provide better systems for
administrators and human resource officers to find and hire the most qualified individuals for
part-time positions.
Many of the demographic characteristics can be determined through the data gathered in
the NSOPF surveys, but a survey response makes it difficult to obtain information on perceptions
about being part-time faculty, experiences they have, or reasons they choose to work part-time.
Case studies with focus groups and in-depth interviews provided an opportunity to uncover such
data.
158

Through the use of qualitative research, the researcher sought to provide a better
understanding of part-time faculty within Florida’s community colleges, with the possibility of
the findings being applicable around the country. The study expanded on Gappa and Leslie’s
1993 research by specifically focusing on community colleges. It also expanded on Roueche et
al.’s (1995) study by directly interviewing part-time faculty as well as administrators within the
community college environment. Most notably, the study focused on providing new information
on the job satisfaction levels of adjuncts in the three community colleges studied. Furthermore,
it may contribute to improved practices with regard to the use of part-time faculty in Florida
community colleges. It also explored, through the eyes of part-time faculty, whether current
part-time faculty policies are effective and how these policies can be improved to help lead to
increased job satisfaction and possibly improved quality of instruction.
Based on the Hagedorn framework, a job taxonomy was developed to help better
described the participants, especially in respect to their motivators and hygienes. Understanding
of the job satisfaction taxonomy proposed in this study provides administrators the opportunity
to better assess the needs of adjuncts. In the case of Dependents, they are financially dependent
on their position, so pay is a large motivator for them. Furthermore, they are usually searching
for a full-time position, and they are very interested in becoming an integral part of the academic
setting. Although money is their primary motivator and benefits are strongly desired, the
satisfaction levels of Dependents can be increased by implementing smaller, often inexpensive
policies, such as recognition of teaching, inclusion in curriculum decisions, and participation in
faculty decisions at the institutional level. By improving the hygienes in their situations, levels
of dissatisfaction may be decreased also.
Furthermore, when a Dependent is hired, there should be clarification of the limits of the
position and future opportunities. If there is little chance for advancement after several years,
administrators should encourage the adjunct to pursue other opportunities. Finally, if the
Dependent is so dissatisfied as to cause disruption and dissent among the part- or full-time
faculty, the administrator may need to make the difficult decision of removing the individual
from the list of prospective adjuncts.
Interims are in an ideal position to serve as adjuncts. Being in a transitional life stage,
they are not interested in the long-term situation. For example, graduate students would fall into
the Interims classification. They are looking for temporary work to provide income and often
159

experience. Although there may be possibilities in the future for full-time work, it is not the
primary focus for them. Furthermore, as an Interim, pay is usually supplemental to loans,
graduate assistantships, and outside funding such as spousal income or parental support.
Therefore, the Interim is usually less dependent on the income and has a more satisfying
experience.
Stables are often the individuals who provide the real world experience. Although pay is
important because Stables are often highly trained and successful individuals who feel their time
is valuable, it serves more as a hygiene than motivator for teaching. Stables tend to teach for
more self-actualizing reasons such as giving back to society. They have minor dissatisfaction in
some areas, but their overall satisfaction is usually high because they are not encumbered by the
worries of financial burdens like Dependents. Furthermore, they are less interested in being
integrated into the faculty, and they prefer to participate at their leisure. Their satisfaction levels
may be increased by providing them with recognition for their achievements and
acknowledgment of the work they do as adjuncts.
Themes uncovered in this research study provide a unique perspective on how job
satisfaction may affect part-time faculty. Understanding the importance of specific areas,
especially compensation and benefits, in the job satisfaction taxonomy can help administrators
make better choices in hiring adjuncts. In addition, it may also lead to a more productive, more
satisfied faculty at all levels.
Implications
The study provided unique insight into the reasons for teaching, demographics, and job
satisfaction levels of adjuncts at the three community colleges studied. The following section
will discuss the implications of the findings on state policy and community colleges.
Implications for State Policy
The Florida Community College System (FLCCS) is one of the leading systems in the
country with strong ties to the Florida Legislature. With the explosive growth in enrollment of
the system statewide and lag in enrollment funding, institutions are faced with the difficult
choice of finding the right balance of full-time and part-time instructors while providing the
needed classes and services to their primary clients, the students. Although the research did not
focus on the state level, adjunct policies need to be studied with a critical focus.
160

Implications for Community Colleges
It is important for institutions to understand that an individual’s behavior is affected by
his or her level of job satisfaction, both positively and negatively. As Spector (1997) discussed,
understanding job satisfaction can provide the institutions with a humanitarian as well as
utilitarian perspective and improve organizational functioning.
The primary reward at the institutions studied was compensation. With job satisfaction
levels affected by rewards that, in turn, may affect job performance, the community colleges
need to carefully evaluate their compensation policies. Although quality of instruction was not
the focus of the research, one of the principal missions of a community college is to meet the
educational needs of its service area, and with teaching (faculty’s job performance) being a key
focus of the institution, quality of instruction should be a major concern. If rewards affect job
performance and the main job performance of faculty, especially adjuncts, at community
colleges is teaching, high levels of dissatisfaction with compensation may adversely affect the
overall quality of instruction.
One of the main reasons institutions use adjuncts is for the fiscal benefit. Adjuncts
provide greater flexibility for institutions in times of growth and decline; however, the
institutions must evaluate the true cost of using adjuncts including the cost to the adjunct, full-
time faculty, and students.
Furthermore, if adjunct faculty ranks continue to grow as expected and community
colleges continue to pay such low compensation, there is a strong possibility that adjuncts will
become coordinated and form collective bargaining units, as has happened in other areas of the
country. Although none of the institutions studied were unionized, adjunct faculty seldom had a
strong voice in the faculty senates and often felt as if they were “second-class citizens,” which
provides an even stronger impetus to unionize. Institutions in the FLCCS need to take a
proactive stance on the use and treatment of adjunct faculties, or these organizations may find
themselves in a reactive situation that could limit their fiscal abilities and flexibility
significantly.
In addition as full-time faculty retire, there may be a shortage of instructors. Many
community colleges are competing with the four-year institutions in their local areas for
adjuncts, especially in high demand subject fields, and the four-year schools are often paying a
higher per course rate than the community college for the same class. Many of the four-year
161

institutions have graduate teaching assistants they can utilize cost effectively, and these
individuals are usually committed because the institution controls their degree. Community
colleges have no such commitment or “hold” over their adjuncts. Adjuncts who are looking for
full-time positions often give more commitment to the institution in hopes of being the next in
line for the position, but if the position does not open or goes to someone else, the adjunct’s
loyalty is limited.
In order to remain competitive, the two-year institutions will have to reevaluate their
compensation schedule in order to attract qualified adjuncts even if they are at the ideal ratio of
70:30. All the institutions studied had already experienced competition with other postsecondary
institutions because they had implemented exceptions to their pay schedules for unique or high
demand areas such as technical certificates. However as population grows and the qualified pool
of adjuncts becomes more limited, the community colleges may find it difficult to provide
required classes to their students.
The community colleges studied need to critically examine their policies to provide for
better pay, improved integration, and ensured continued success for adjuncts and students.
While each institution studied had a unique identity, make-up, and service area, improvements
could be made concerning the use of adjuncts by all three, and these policies may be applicable
and adaptable to all of Florida’s community colleges.
Practice versus Policy
In the research study, there were several gaps in what the administrators indicated as
policy and what adjuncts experienced in practice. As previously discussed, none of the
institutions offered medical benefits, retirement plans, vacation or sick leave to the adjuncts.
There were a few perks that were offered to adjuncts, but the institutions did not do an adequate
job of informing adjuncts about the availability of these additional benefits.
Most notably, all three institutions had a professional development fund that could be
used for workshops, traveling, and research. Administrators indicated that all faculty, including
adjuncts, were eligible for professional development funds. For cost effectiveness, the
institutions most often utilized the funds for campus-wide workshops; however, none of the
adjuncts interviewed were aware of the fund. When asked if there were any opportunities for
development, most noted that they were invited to the workshops offered, but only the TCC
adjuncts were paid for attending.
162

Several other benefits were offered to adjuncts. TCC and RCC offered free tuition.
Again, it seemed that most of the adjuncts were unaware of this opportunity. UCC offered
special theme park discounts, but when asked, none of the adjuncts mentioned this as a benefit or
perk.
Occasionally the institutions utilized adjuncts in curriculum development, especially in
the development of Internet courses. Adjuncts in the study who were involved in the
development of Internet classes were paid for their time at the same rate as full-time faculty.
Adjuncts at UCC were the only ones who discussed this opportunity.
Support services were available to all the adjuncts. Most of the adjuncts prepared their
own tests, hand-outs, and other class materials. The main support service used by the adjuncts
was copying, but the evening adjuncts often found it hard to use this service because of the
difficulty of getting to campus before the offices close. At RCC, the adjuncts in one division
were not given a copy code for fear of abuse, so they had to depend on full-time faculty or office
employees to make their copies for them, often causing significant inconvenience to the adjunct.
Another area where policy and practice differed was in hiring. All three institutions had
policies in place that indicated their adherence to SACS and FLCCS guidelines. Administrators
attempted to keep a qualified pool of applicants to hire. None the less due to increased demand,
classes were offered for which there were no qualified adjuncts to teach, and they admitted that
adjuncts were hired who did not meet the SACS requirements to teach some of these classes. In
addition, the administrators acknowledged that they hired adjuncts at the “last minute” to fill
spaces, and there were times when adjuncts were released from classes after conducting two or
three classes due to the low number of students. Administrators conceded this gap in policy and
practice. To justify this practice, they blamed the growing number of students at community
colleges and decreasing budgets which forced institutions to offer classes using adjuncts, and
sometimes it was not possible to find qualified adjuncts on such short notice to meet the
demands.
Another noted policy to practice gap is pay. FLCCS guidelines state that pay should
reflect compensation for the adjuncts in-class and out-of-class hours devoted to teaching a class.
All the administrators interviewed noted that adjuncts were paid based on in-class hours with
the expectation of a certain number of office hours included. However, adjuncts discussed the
actual number of hours spent on a course, and there is a significant gap between the two.
163

Finally, one of the most prominent gaps in practice and policy is evaluations. Student
evaluations appeared to be given regularly. Additionally, administrators discussed the use of
supervisors and faculty to evaluate adjuncts, with the requirements that evaluations be
administered regularly (preferably once a semester but a minimum of once a year), and adjuncts
were required to meet with the evaluators and supervisors to discuss the evaluation. Based on
the interviews, the limited number of adjuncts who were actually evaluated by another faculty
member or supervisor were not pleased with the process; they felt those doing the evaluations
were not taking the process seriously. In addition, very few adjuncts had follow-up discussions
with their evaluator or supervisor concerning the evaluation. On the whole, adjuncts wanted
more input from the peers and supervisors to help them to improve their teaching skills.
Comparison of Institutional Practices to FLCCS Guidelines and Gappa and Leslie’s
Recommendations
There are several gaps between policy and practice as previously noted. This section will
discuss how the institutions studied compare to FLCCS guidelines and Gappa and Leslie’s
(1993) recommendations. The FLCCS compiled a list of guidelines for the member community
colleges to use in the hiring of adjuncts titled “Guidelines For Effective Use Of Part-Time
Faculty Florida Community Colleges” (See Appendix N). Although the institutions studied met
most of the guidelines of the FLCCS, these guidelines are very broad and deal with only the
basic needs of adjuncts. When comparing the findings of the research study, the following was
determined:
1. Guidelines 1 and 2: All three institutions attempted to maintain a pool of
qualified part-time faculty. In maintaining this pool, adjunct faculty had to meet the SACS
accreditation requirements. All three institutions required applications with references and
verifiable transcripts, and they all conducted a minimum of at least one interview before hiring.
Although the administrators acknowledged that they attempted to avoid hiring “last minute”
adjuncts who were unprepared, hiring often depended on the demand, which often was not fully
known until the first week of classes.
2. Guidelines 3 and 4: All three institutions provided some type of orientation,
which was usually scheduled before classes began, and they all had adjunct faculty (or faculty)
handbooks that were given to the instructors.
164

3. Guideline 5: TCC and UCC had mentoring programs in place for part-time
faculty. RCC did not have a formal program in place, but the administrators believed that part-
time faculty could go to the full-time faculty with any questions.
4. Guideline 6: All three institutions noted that part-time faculty were eligible for
professional development funds. In addition, part-time faculty were also invited to the
workshops. Although there were some professional development opportunities, the majority of
the adjuncts in the study were unaware of them, indicating that the institutions may not have
done a sufficient job of informing these adjuncts.
5. Guideline 7: Although all three institutions varied, each had a set amount of
office hours adjuncts were required to keep. Most adjuncts had some type of workspace or
office space to hold their office hours.
6. Guideline 8: All three institutions adhered to this policy.
7. Guideline 9: Adjuncts were provided mailboxes as well as access to the library
and needed media and technology services. Although all adjuncts did not have their own
telephone or word processing instrument in their office space/area, all departments provided
access to these items. Copying services were provided to all adjuncts. The main problem the
institutions encountered with Guideline 9 was with evening adjuncts. Those who had the most
trouble with any of these items were those who were there after office hours. Although the
institutions extended their services to as late as 7:00 p.m., adjuncts still encountered problems if
they had issues with audio-visual or technical items.
8. Guideline 10: At all three institutions, observations in classrooms and follow-up
interviews or meetings were sporadic and inconsistent. Student evaluations were the main
source of evaluation, and adjuncts indicated that they wanted more input from their peers and
superiors.
9. Guideline 11: This information was not determined in the interviews.
10. Guideline 12: All three institutions invited adjuncts to the faculty meetings, and
adjuncts were welcome at college level meetings. Publications were distributed through
mailboxes at all institutions.
11. Guideline 13: When discussing compensation with administrators, it was
indicated that adjuncts were compensated for their in-class time. Adjuncts felt that their out-of-
class activities were not properly compensated. If these hours were incorporated into the hour
165

count for per semester wages, per hour rates were significantly lower than the initial rate
indicated.
12. Guideline 14: None of the institutions indicated any type of recognition program
for outstanding teaching performance geared towards part-time faculty. Faculty at TCC had
opted to not have any type of “Teacher of the Year” award for any faculty.
Gappa and Leslie (1993) provided a more detailed list of 43 recommendations. When
compared with the practices of the institutions studied, there were numerous shortcomings as
discussed below:
1. Recommendations 1-3, 8: None of the institutions specifically involved adjuncts
in the faculty staffing plan.
2. Recommendations 4-6: None of the institutions discussed how they collected and
monitored data on part-time faculty. Additionally, none indicated that part-time faculty were
being surveyed.
3. Recommendation 7: None of the institutions indicated that short- or long-term
assessments of the cost of part-time faculty were conducted.
4. Recommendation 9: None of the institutions indicated that a representative body
or committee was in place to advise the institution on the use of part-time faculty. TCC had a
special liaison in one division who focused on part-time faculty.
5. Recommendation 11: Part-time faculty employment policies varied between the
institutions. Although Board of Governors actually confirmed appointments, hiring was done at
the program or departmental level in most cases.
6. Recommendation 12: All three institutions utilized part-time faculty on a
semester-to-semester basis. There were also several adjuncts who had been employed for many
years by their institution, but no adjunct was given a guarantee of future employment.
7. Recommendations 13-16: There was no job security, tenure track, or reward
system for long-term adjuncts at any of the institutions.
8. Recommendations 17-20: Although the institutions attempted to recruit
proactively and followed the hiring requirements of SACS, there did not appear to be any
attempt to improve diversity through the hiring of part-time faculty.
9. Recommendations 21-23: All three institutions had salary scales set for part-time
faculty. However, the method of progression for TCC and UCC was based on degree levels.
166

Occasionally, UCC adjuncts had an opportunity to be paid for extra hours based on percentage of
load, but this pay method was used sparingly. RCC adjuncts could progress through the pay
scale only by increasing class size. There were no scales that rewarded longevity or professional
development outside of additional degrees.
10. Recommendation 24: No medical, retirement, sick leave or vacation pay benefits
were provided to part-time faculty.
11. Recommendation 25: The main source of evaluation at the institutions was the
students’ evaluations.
12. Recommendations 26 and 27: Adjuncts in the study felt that support services
were good at the institutions. However, the feeling that adjuncts played an important role in the
institution was limited.
13. Recommendations 28-30: Responsibility for hiring and supervising adjuncts was
usually at the departmental or program level. None of the department heads discussed incentives
or training given to them as supervisors that was specifically geared to part-time faculty.
14. Recommendations 31 and 32: Mentoring programs were utilized at UCC and
TCC, but it was usually a single individual assigned by the department or program to do
evaluations. Adjuncts at all three institutions felt mentoring programs could be improved, but
not all of the adjuncts were interested in utilizing them.
15. Recommendations 33- 35: Part-time faculty were occasionally asked for input on
course design, but this was the exception rather than the rule. TCC included part-time faculty on
several of their committees, especially at the departmental level. However, there was little
inclusion at the institutional level by any of the institutions.
16. Recommendations 36 and 37: Part-time faculty, who were involved in “informal
talk,” were usually those who were day instructors. In addition, all institutions invited the
adjuncts to social events, but most were unable to attend due to scheduling conflicts.
17. Recommendation 38: There was very little public recognition of adjuncts’
achievements and contributions.
18. Recommendation 39: All institutions had orientations for part-time faculty, but
most adjuncts felt that it was not especially useful.
167

19. Recommendations 40 and 41: Although adjuncts were welcome to attend, the
institutions had limited in-service training. With rare exceptions, professional development
opportunities were limited to workshops and activities on campus.
to adjuncts.
20. Recommendation 42: None of the institutions gave performance-based incentives
21. Recommendation 43: Student evaluations were given to adjuncts for review, and
many used them to improve their skills. Peer and supervisor evaluations were limited or non-
existent at all three institutions, and often when they were conducted, adjuncts felt the evaluator
was not doing an appropriate job.
As the previous comparison indicates, institutions in the study were meeting the broad
specifications of the FLCCS. However, when scrutinized at a more detailed level through the
lens of Gappa and Leslie’s recommendations, many improvements could be made.
Recommendations
Based on the research literature and the findings of the research study, the subsequent
section discusses recommendations to improve the job satisfaction levels of adjuncts. With
improved job satisfaction, institutions may be able to reduce turnover, provide better support,
and improve the quality of instruction institution-wide. Although not a completely
comprehensive list, the following recommendations highlight the areas of greatest dissatisfaction
found in this study.
Improve Compensation
As previous research indicated, job satisfaction is often tied positively to rewards (Jacobs
& Solomon, 1977). All of the adjuncts were in agreement that they were not paid enough,
especially when compared to full-time faculties’ salaries. One of the quickest ways to improve
job satisfaction for adjuncts is to improve their pay to where the adjuncts believe they are being
paid equitably to full-time faculty. Community colleges should develop a formula that would
account for the in-class time, initial and weekly class preparation, grading, and office hours that
part-time faculty actually work. If placed on a proportional scale to full-time faculty, part-time
faculty would feel they are getting equitable pay for their teaching since they are required to
have the same levels of education and often go through as rigorous a hiring process as full-time.
Furthermore, when adjuncts are hired, the pay scale should be thoroughly explained, so they
168

have a solid understanding of how the pay scale works and that they are being paid in equitable
terms when compared to full-time faculty.
Adjuncts should also be paid, either per diem or hourly, for attendance at any function
required by the institution with the exception of social events. These functions include but are
not limited to orientation, training sessions, faculty meetings, committee meetings, and required
or voluntary workshops. This would increase their incentive to invest more time into the
institution as well as improve their teaching abilities.
Institutions should consider instituting raises based on longevity. Adjuncts who have
been with an institution for long periods of time, especially those over 10 years, should be paid
more than those who are just starting as an adjunct. Providing longevity raises will help to
increase loyalty to the institution and retain exceptional adjuncts.
Develop Some Type of Benefits Program
Although approximately two-thirds of the adjuncts in the study were covered by outside
medical insurance programs through spouses or private plans, medical insurance was a
significant problem for the adjuncts who did not have any. Even with adjuncts paying full cost,
providing insurance would decrease adjuncts’ dissatisfaction, especially those who are not
covered elsewhere.
Currently, the most practical way of providing insurance is through some type of non-
group plan. Many postsecondary institutions provide per semester insurance for enrolled
students. A similar type of policy could be provided to adjuncts, which would cover them as
long as they were teaching, and there is usually no cost to the institutions for the policies.
Institutions should also allow the adjuncts to participate in the retirement plans. Even if
there are no matching funds, being allowed to invest money beyond the social security
requirement will only benefit the adjunct and possibly the economy in the future.
Finally, an adjunct should receive the same (or similar) perks as full-time faculty.
Parking permits, library privileges, copying privileges, faculty discounts, and free (or reduced)
admission to institutional functions such as plays, concerts, movies, and work-out facilities
should be extended to adjunct faculty during the period of their appointment. Also, if full-time
faculty are offered free tuition, adjunct faculty should be able to accumulate credits towards this
benefit. These are small, relatively inexpensive steps the institution can take to improve adjunct
satisfaction.
169

These recommendations would have to be carefully considered with specific parameters
put into place such as requiring a minimum number of consecutive semesters as an adjunct.
Providing benefits to long-serving and reliable adjuncts would improve their satisfaction level in
many areas as well as increase loyalty to the institution.
Provide a Supportive Infrastructure
Institutions need to provide a supportive infrastructure that would allow a smooth
transition into the teaching position for adjuncts. Policies should be in place in which a new (or
previously employed) adjunct can easily obtain keys, textbooks, grade books, sample syllabi, and
other needed information. Also, there should be easy access to facilities for copying and
technological support, especially for those teaching in the evening. Having a strong
infrastructure and support system will help alleviate unnecessary frustration.
The institutions studied had 100-300 adjuncts at various times of the year. Statewide this
number fluctuates, but there are large numbers of adjunct faculty in the state. To provide better
services for this large population of employees, every community college should have at least
one adjunct liaison whose main responsibility is to assist adjuncts. Although a college-wide
liaison would provide for consistency across the institution, the institution may prefer to have
liaisons within each division, department or program to help with problems and issues that may
be specific to the fields of study within that particular area. For example, adjuncts within the
English and humanities areas have distinctly different questions and needs for training than
adjuncts in the mathematics area.
At the time of the interviews, TCC had created a new position in one division, and one of
the main responsibilities of the individual was to work to improve adjunct relations, experiences,
and services. Such a position indicates to adjunct faculty that the institution believes their roles
as educators are important.
All adjuncts should be provided with a space for office hours. Although not always
feasible, the space needs to be semi-private. Furthermore, their space should be easily accessible
and usable, with at least a telephone. Although many adjuncts have their own personal
computers, if a computer and printer cannot be provided to an adjunct in their office space, one
should be readily accessible for the adjunct’s use if needed.
170

Provide a Thorough Orientation
Although adjunct faculty are often very busy due to outside commitments, orientation is a
valuable tool. It can help establish the infrastructure mentioned previously. Furthermore,
orientation gives the adjuncts an opportunity to ask questions, learn about the services the
institution provides to assist them in their roles as adjuncts, and meet other full- and part-time
faculty, administrators, and support staff, which helps initiate them into the culture of the
campus. Orientations should be mandatory and held at a time when the majority of adjuncts can
attend, such as a Saturday. To encourage attendance and show the value of orientation, adjuncts
should be paid for their time. Besides disseminating information, structured time should be set
aside to meet other part- and full-time faculty. A good orientation will help alleviate many of the
fears adjuncts face when they first begin to teach.
Provide for Integration and Socialization
Although integration and socialization is a difficult goal to accomplish with a mobile
faculty, institutions can make an effort through induction at the institutional, division,
departmental, and program level. Some possibilities could include the following: establish
evening gatherings on campus for adjuncts to attend, invite adjuncts to all faculty meetings with
occasional meetings set in the evening to improve availability, and invite and pay adjuncts for
attending workshops and staff development meetings on campus.
In addition to the liaison mentioned previously, institutions should set-up a mentoring
program pairing an adjunct with a full-time faculty member or a mentoring team of faculty who
share the responsibility of mentoring. It is recommended that mentor training programs be
provided to the full-time faculty to improve their skills as mentors. Policies should be in place
that make mentoring part of the full-time faculty’s duties and should include the following
minimum requirements:
1. Weekly telephone or e-mail contact with the adjunct
2. Meetings with the adjunct on a periodic basis with a minimum of three times per
semester
3. Several classroom visitations with verbal and written feedback to the adjunct (not to be
used as their formal evaluation but as an opportunity for informal feedback and
constructive criticism).
171

Mentoring can be an extremely effective tool in providing an atmosphere of acceptance as well
as a supportive environment for growth and improvement.
Another form of integration is to provide professional development opportunities for
adjuncts. Although all three institutions studied had set-up the 2% development fund required
by the state and affirmed that the funds were available to adjuncts as well as full-time faculty,
none of the adjuncts studied were aware of professional development opportunities. Institutions
often used these funds for campus-wide workshops that were open to the entire faculty to
increase development opportunities across campus; however, only TCC paid adjuncts to attend
these workshops. Adjuncts should be invited to all the workshops, paid for their attendance, and
possibly receive additional recognition for participating. Furthermore, adjuncts should be made
aware of the professional development money available and understand that they are eligible for
the funds, which was not the case among the adjuncts studied. Allowing adjuncts to apply for
professional development funds or supporting them in their efforts to improve their skills
demonstrates that the institution values the adjunct not only as an instructor but also as a
professional who desires to grow and learn. With the limited funding, the institutions could limit
opportunities to use funding for travel and off-campus conferences to those who have been at the
institution for a specified period of time, which could be a form of reward for long-term service.
Another way to incorporate adjuncts into the institutional culture would be to reward
them with special commendations or awards. Many corporations budget for “service excellence”
awards, and postsecondary institutions have special recognition for outstanding full-time faculty.
Establishing an “Adjunct Teacher of the Year” award would be a nominal expense to the
institution, division, or department and would emphasize adjuncts importance to the institution.
Giving small monetary awards for adjuncts who have provided outstanding service to the
institution is another inexpensive method of rewarding adjuncts. These “excellence” awards
could be for loyalty and long-term service to the institution as well as for outstanding academic
instruction. There are many ways to implement such awards with only minimal policy changes.
A final method of integration into the institution would be to give adjuncts a valid voice.
Two of the institutions allowed adjuncts to sit on committees or have input to faculty senate
proceedings, but only one of those institutions gave the adjunct representative an actual vote. A
valid voice would be representation and a vote at the departmental, faculty senate, and
institutional level.
172

Other ways to provide adjuncts a voice could be in the form of input into curriculum
development at the departmental or program level. Adjuncts, especially those who have been at
the institution for several years, should be included on department/program, division, and
institutional committees. When asked to participate on committees, adjuncts should be paid for
their time. Based on the literature and the findings of this study, adjuncts are very committed to
teaching, whether pursuing a full-time position or working outside of academia, and they can
provide unique insight and input if given the opportunity.
Improve Methods of Evaluation
Student evaluations are important to the evaluation process, but the institutions were
much too reliant on them. Evaluation should be a three-fold process and should be part of every
faculty’s feedback. First, the student evaluation should continue. Although a few adjuncts felt
students were not the most objective individuals to evaluate instructors, student evaluations of
instruction can provide excellent feedback, and many adjuncts took feedback seriously and used
it to make changes to improve their methods of instruction.
Classroom observation and evaluation should be given each semester to all faculty who
are in their first few years of teaching and at least annually to those who have been teaching
three or more years. The evaluator should give a written report and have a meeting to discuss
the evaluation with the adjunct. Policies should be implemented that require the evaluators to
actually visit and observe in the classroom for a specified period of time (for example, one hour
minimum). Each institution should make every effort to make these evaluations as non-
threatening as possible, but those being evaluated should understand that the evaluations are
important and the institution is concerned about the quality of their teaching.
Additionally, the department or program chair should meet with adjuncts each semester
to discuss the formal observation and student evaluations. This meeting should be used to
discuss areas of teaching effectiveness and areas for improvement in the adjunct’s teaching and
may include a plan to address areas for improvement that could incorporate staff development
opportunities or other assistance for the adjunct.
With the implementation of the adjunct liaison, adjuncts could come together on a regular
schedule to discuss issues and problems. These focus groups or sessions can provide valuable
insight into the needs of adjuncts and pinpoint possible training areas on which professional
development workshops need to focus.
173

Finally, the institutions could arrange evaluations for adjuncts to complete. In these
evaluations, adjuncts can address their satisfactions and dissatisfactions with their supervisors,
support faculty, students, and the institution as a whole. Furthermore, every adjunct who leaves
the institution, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, should have an exit interview. If set-up
properly, these interviews can provide valuable information on changes the institution, divisions
or departments need to make to improve their services to the adjuncts and to the students. In
addition, the exit interviews can be used to provide a quantifiable measurement of problems and
issues confronting adjuncts at the institution.
Provide for Quality Control
One of the concerns of students, parents, educators, and legislators is the quality of
teaching at institutions. A policy for evaluating quality should be implemented by each
institution and could include the use of formal observation and student evaluation. Exit
interviews of faculty will also provide a measure of quality by exposing the positive and
negative experiences of the departing faculty. Furthermore, institutions may consider
implementing a quantitative method of measuring quality with performance indicators such as
student achievement. There is the common perception that adjuncts do not teach as well as full-
time faculty, but there is no solid research to prove this assumption. With a measurement system
addressing student achievement, institutions will be able to determine who needs to improve
their methods of teaching, and an assessment of adjunct faculty effectiveness can be compared
with that of full-time faculty.
Provide Some Form of Job Security
Due to the nature of the part-time position, the researcher recognizes that job security is
difficult to provide. However, adjuncts, who have taught semester after semester and year after
year, should be assured that they will have first priority for classes over other adjuncts.
Ray, a 30+ year adjunct at UCC, had an interesting suggestion that would help reward
adjuncts for loyalty, longevity, and professional development. He suggested implementing a
point system. Adjuncts receive points based on the number of classes they have taught. They
would be given additional points for consecutive years as well as degrees obtained and
professional development activities. Adjuncts would be given priority on available classes and
times based on their point level. It would also provide a quantifiable way to determine pay
174

scales and raises for adjuncts. Such a system would help to alleviate feelings that adjuncts
commitments are not appreciated by the institution.
Although a full-time, tenured position would be the best way to obtain job security,
institutions need to be honest about the opportunities for advancement. They should not state or
imply that an adjunct position will lead to a full-time job. Furthermore, if the institution is aware
that an adjunct’s goal is to obtain a full-time position and knows the adjunct will not be
considered due to educational qualifications or personality issues, they should be clear about the
situation.
Also, if their policy is to promote from within, the adjuncts should be aware of the time-
frame for promotion. For example, TCC was known to promote internally; however, some
adjuncts worked 14 years before receiving a promotion to full-time. Adjuncts should be aware
of such time-frames when they begin at the institution, especially if their goal is to become a
full-time faculty member there.
Improve Recruitment and Hiring Policies
Institutions should not give courtesy interviews for adjunct positions if they know they
will be promoting from within, especially if they are not going to reimburse the interviewee for
their expenses.
Although it is often difficult to change organizational culture on campuses, the preceding
recommendations can provide for a more accepting setting for adjuncts. In addition, by
implementing the recommendations, the institution demonstrates the valuable role adjuncts have
in the educational process. These recommendations are given as ways to improve the job
satisfaction level for adjuncts. It is understood that the community colleges, as all postsecondary
institutions, have significant financial constraints with which to contend, but many of the
recommendations are policy changes that have only minor financial implications, yet if
implemented, could have definite positive ramifications.
Directions for Future Research
In qualitative research, the findings and conclusions often lead to many more questions
and need for further research. Use of part-time faculty will continue at postsecondary
institutions, and there is much more information to learn about this group of individuals. Many
areas needing additional research surfaced during the course of this study. A list of proposals
includes the following:
175

1. Replicate the study on other community college campuses to gather additional data
on adjunct faculty. Further research would assist in identifying special needs of this
group.
2. Conduct a study that would provide quantifiable measures of quality of instruction of
both full- and part-time faculty.
3. Establish an alternative strategy of studying adjuncts utilizing the readily accessible
electronic technology through use of e-mail and chat rooms hosted and monitored by
the researcher.
4. Conduct a study that would expand the analysis of the differences among adjuncts in
subject fields, by gender, by marital status, and by educational level.
5. Conduct a quantitative study that would provide verifiable, replicable data to solidify
the findings of this research as well as former studies conducted on part-time faculty
6. Conduct a study that would compare the experiences of part-time and full-time
faculty at community colleges.
7. Conduct a study to determine the reasons why part-time faculty’s overall satisfaction
is greater while satisfaction with autonomy and students is less than full-time faculty.
Summary
This research provides valuable insight into the use of part-time faculty at the three
community colleges studied. Nevertheless, the reader must understand that there are numerous
factors that are unknown to or unaccounted for by the researcher. Furthermore, the findings and
conclusions of this study were based on a small sample size and significantly limit the
generalizability of the information contained herein. It is the hope of the researcher that the
information provided by this study will be used as a solid stepping stone for further research. In
addition, the researcher hopes the findings, conclusions, and recommendations will provide
information for policy makers, at both the state and institutional level, to improve the status and
use of part-time faculty within all institutions.
176

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
Florida’s 28 Community Colleges
(The Fact Book, 2003, pg. 7)
COLLEGE YEAR ESTABLISHED
Palm Beach Community College 1933
St. Petersburg Junior College 1947 1
Chipola Junior College 1948 2
Pensacola Junior College 1947
Gulf Coast Community College 1957
Central Florida Community College 1958
Daytona Beach Community College 1958
Manatee Community College 1958
North Florida Community College 1958
St. Johns River Community College 1958
Brevard Community College 1960
Broward Community College 1960
Indian River Community College 1960
Miami-Dade Community College 1960
Edison Community College 1962
Lake City Community College 1962
Lake-Sumter Community College 1962
Okaloosa-Walton Community College 1964
Polk Community College 1965
Florida Keys Community College 1966
Florida Community College at Jacksonville 1966
Santa Fe Community College 1966
Seminole Community College 1966
South Florida Community College 1966
Tallahassee Community College 1967
Valencia Community College 1967
Hillsborough Community College 1968
Pasco-Hernando Community College 1972
1 St. Petersburg Jr. College was established in 1927 as a private institution and became part of Florida’s public
system in 1947. The name was changed to St. Petersburg College in 2001.
2 Chipola Jr. College was established in 1947 as a private institution and became part of Florida’s public system in
1948.
177

APPENDIX B
District Black Colleges That Merged with the FLCCS
(Taken from The Fact Book, 2003, p.3)
District Black College Founded Merged With Year
Booker T. Washington Jr. College 1949 Pensacola Jr. College 1965
Carver Jr. College 1960 Brevard Jr. College 1963
Collier-Blocker Jr. College 1960 St. Johns River CC 1965
Gibbs Jr. College 1957 St. Petersburg Jr. College 1966
Hampton Jr. College 1958 Central Florida CC 1966
Jackson College 1961 Chipola Jr. College 1966
Johnson College 1962 Lake-Sumter CC 1966
Lincoln College 1960 Indian River CC 1965
Roosevelt College 1958 Palm Beach CC 1965
Rosenwald College 1958 Gulf Coast CC 1966
Suwannee River College 1959 North Florida CC 1967
Volusia Community College 1957 Daytona Beach CC 1966
178

APPENDIX C
FLCCS Facts
(Table C.1 through C.4 Taken from The Fact Book, 2003)
APPENDIX C. 1: Headcount Enrollment for FLCCS Fall 2002
Total 358,854 Minority Total 149,047
Males 141,348 Blacks 58,300
Females 217,506 Hispanic 64,095
Am. Indian Or Alaskan 1,494
Asian or Pacific Islander 9,457
Alien 9,830
Unknown 5,871
APPENDIX C.2: Enrollment in Degree Programs in FLCCS (2001-2002)
A.A. Degrees A.S. Degrees Certificates* Total
System-Wide 228,359 87,403 45,378 361,140
*Includes enrollment for Postsecondary Adult Vocational Certificate Program, Postsecondary Vocational Certificate
Program, and Advanced Technical Certificate Program
APPENDIX C.3: Total Degrees Awarded in FLCCS (2001-2002)
A.A. Degrees A.S Degrees Certificates* Total
System-Wide 27,781 9,133 21,304 58,218
*Includes enrollment for Postsecondary Adult Vocational Certificate Program, Postsecondary Vocational Certificate
Program, and Advanced Technical Certificate Program
APPENDIX C.4: Headcount, Full- and Part-Time Count, and Racial Make-up of
Instructional Employees in the FLCCS Fall 2002-2003
Male Total White Black Hispanic Other
Full-time Faculty 2,408 1,951 196 179 82
Part-time Faculty 8,887 6,831 636 1,085 335
System-Wide 11,295 8,782 832 1,264 417
Female Total White Black Hispanic Other
Full-time Faculty 2,536 2,036 247 190 63
Part-time Faculty 8,190 6,110 837 910 333
System-Wide 10,726 8,146 1,084 1,100 396
Total 22,021 16,928 1,916 2,364 813
179

APPENDIX C.5: Interesting Facts about the FLCCS
♦ The FLCCS has eight of top 20 producers of associate degrees in the nation (Borden &
Brown, 2003):
� Miami-Dade Community College (1)
� Valencia Community College (2)
� Broward Community College (6)
� Florida Community College at Jacksonville (8)
� St. Petersburg College (9)
� Santa Fe Community College (10)
� Hillsborough Community College (14)
� Palm Beach Junior College (17)
♦ Fifteen of the 28 institutions in the FLCCS are in the top 100 producers of associate degrees
(Borden & Brown, 2003).
♦ The FLCCS has three of the top 10 producers of associate degrees for minorities in the nation
(Borden & Brown, 2003):
� Miami Dade Community College (1)
� Broward Community College (4)
� Valencia Community College (5)
♦ The FLCCS has three of the top 20 community colleges in student enrollment (Borden &
Brown, 2003):
� Miami Dade Community College (1)
� Valencia Community College (8)
� Broward Community College (12)
180

APPENDIX D
Gappa and Leslie’s Recommended Practices
1. Develop goals for the use of part-time faculty that are based on the educational mission of
the college or university.
2. Include the use of part-time faculty in the overall faculty staffing plan.
3. Consult part-time faculty during the development of faculty staffing plan.
4. Assign responsibility, delegate authority, develop policies and guidelines, and review and
monitor adherent to policy.
5. Systematically and routinely gather and use accurate and timely data on part-time faculty for
decision-making purposes.
6. Periodically survey part-time faculty for additional information about their perceptions of the
conditions under which they work, their satisfaction with their employment, and other
concerns or interest.
7. Assess the benefits and short- and long-term costs of employing part-time faculty.
8. Review and evaluate the faculty staffing plan on a regular basis.
9. Establish a campuswide representative body to give advice on part-time faculty employment
policies.
10. Publish part-time faculty employment policies in the faculty manual and distribute them to
all department chairs and faculty, especially the part-time faculty.
11. Make department chairs responsible for implementing part-time faculty employment policies
consistently
12. Offer a range of employment options for part-time faculty
13. Provide for part-time tenure
14. Provide security and due-process rights for part-timers with seniority and records of effective
performance.
15. Appoint continuing part-time faculty for more extended periods.
16. Establish career tracks that provide rewards and incentives for long-term service and/or high
achievement.
17. Identify qualifications for part-time faculty that are legitimately related to the job
requirements
18. Recruit, select, and hire part-time faculty proactively.
19. Diversify the part-time faculty pool through affirmative action
20. Provide timely and early notification of appointments to part-time positions.
21. Develop a salary scale for part-time faculty.
22. Ensure consistency of compensation practices for part-timers within departments and
institutions.
23. Set standards for progression through the salary scale.
24. Provide benefits to continuing part-time faculty.
25. Develop objective performance criteria and procedures for evaluating part-time faculty and
use the results as the basis for decisions about reappointment.
26. Provide support services to part-time faculty.
27. Communicate the message that part-time faculty are important to the institution.
28. Give department chairs responsibility and incentives to supervise part-time faculty.
29. Orient department chairs to good supervisory practice.
181

30. Invite part-time faculty to share their perceptions of effective supervisory practice at
department chair training sessions.
31. Use teams of experienced faculty (full- and part-time) to develop new faculty members’
teaching skills.
32. Provide faculty mentors to inexperienced part-time faculty.
33. Engage full- and part-time faculty in course coordination.
34. Involved part-time faculty in the assessment of student learning.
35. Appoint part-time faculty to committees.
36. Involve part-time faculty in informal talk.
37. Invite part-time faculty to social events.
38. Publicly recognize part-time faculty for their achievements and contributions.
39. Orient part-time faculty to the institution and to the expectations the institutions has for them.
40. Conduct frequent workshops on good teaching practices.
41. Provide in-service professional development opportunities for part-time faculty.
42. Provide incentives for good performance.
43. Use teaching evaluations to help part-time faculty improve.
(p. 234-276)
182

APPENDIX E
Audit Trail Categories
(Adapted from Lincoln & Guba, 1985, Erlandson et al., 1993, and Schwandt & Halpern, 1988)
I. Phenomena Being Studied
A. Raw data (Strong influence on credibility)
1. Interview guides
2. Tapes recordings and transcriptions
3. Notes from observations, interviews, documents, and other sources
4. Documents
5. Times and dates of activities to be included on all material
B. Data reduction and analysis products (assist in forming overall themes)
1. 5 X 7 cards
2. Condensation of notes to facilitate communication
3. Write-ups for data clarification (immediate follow-up writings)
4. Categories as they emerge to classify unitized data
5. Peer debriefing notes
6. Visual displays to summarize large quantities of data
7. Computer analysis summaries
C. Data reconstruction and synthesis products (Track themes as they emerge)
1. Grounded theory sheets
2. Data analysis sheets
3. Theoretical notes representing new constructions and working hypotheses
4. Visual displays that show relationships among categories
5. Findings and conclusions are logically related to categories that have been identified and
examined
6. Reports that have been made of the study (interim or final)
II. Procedures of the Inquiry
A. Notes about process of the inquiry
1. Methodological notes—how procedures, strategies and day-to-day decisions were made
during study
2. Trustworthiness notes—track steps taken to enhance credibility, dependability, and
confirmability
3. Audit trail notes that provide road map of study
4. Reflexive journal
B. Notes about intentions and motivations
1. Copy of original inquiry proposal
2. Personal notes reveal feelings, introspections, fears, biases, and emerging values of
researcher
3. Reflexive journal—record of researcher’s thought processes as they developed and
guided study
4. Key questions that guided the inquiry—initially and during process
5. Peer debriefing notes
C. Copies of instruments tools, and resources
1. Preliminary protocols
2. Information relative to any instrument development
3. Tools used to collect data
4. Tools used to analyze data
Notes to remember:
1. Do not report a “fact” without documenting a source
183

TO: Adjunct Instructors
Urban Community College
FROM: Dorothea Taylor Bogert
DATE: April 5, 2001
APPENDIX F
Sample of Memo to Adjuncts
M E M O
RE: Focus Group for Adjunct Instructors
I am conducting a study of the use of adjunct instructors in Florida’s community colleges, and
this memorandum is to request your participation in a focus group. The focus group session will
be approximately 90 minutes, and we will be discussing your experiences as an adjunct
instructor at Urban Community College. There will be two focus groups with a limit of 8-10
participants per group, so please contact me right away if you are interested in participating.
The focus groups will be meeting April 16 & April 17, 2001 from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on the
Main Campus. The room location will be given at the time of confirmation. Also, I will be
providing a light meal of sandwiches, chips, and drinks for your convenience and enjoyment
between 6:00-6:30 p.m.
If you are interested in participating in the focus group, please contact me toll free at 877-242-
6884 by April 12, 2001. Also, please feel free to pass this information on to fellow UCC
adjuncts who would be willing to participate in the study.
In appreciation for your participation, we will be having a drawing from the participants in each
focus group for a $50 gift certificate to a local restaurant.
I thank you for your assistance in this study, and I look forward to talking with you.
184

APPENDIX G
Questionnaires used in campus interviews
(Gappa & Leslie, 1993, p. 291-308)
APPENDIX G.1: Questionnaire for Part-Time Faculty
1. Give a brief description of your academic background and professional experience.
2. How long have you been teaching here? Are you teaching anywhere else?
3. What other jobs or roles do you hold at the present time? Which one is your primary job?
4. Why are you a part-time teacher here?
5. How satisfied are you with your current work/life situation?
a. With your teaching at this institution?
b. With your department (status, support, relationship to other part-timers and to tenured
faculty)?
c. With the relationship between your teaching here and other jobs/roles?
6. What are your career aspirations? Are you geographically mobile?
7. What are the most important issues you confront as part-time faculty?
8. What do you like most about teaching adjunct?
9. What would you change?
10. What should [this study] address?
185

APPENDIX G.2: Questionnaires for Chief Academic Officer 3
Tell me a about your professional career. How long have you been in your position at this
institution.
1. a. How would you describe the mission of your institution?
b. Does the institution have policies governing the employment of all part-time
faculty? Are policies developed at the college/school or department level?
c. What state laws or state-system policies affect employment of part-time faculty?
d. Are any recent legal developments (court cases, grievances, arbitration, etc.) affecting
use of part-timers at your campus?
e. Do part-timers belong to a collective bargaining unit? Is there a separate contract
covering part-time faculty? Are part-time faculty included in a full-time faculty unit?
2. Deciding when and how to use part-time faculty
a. Who controls/monitors use of part-timers (centralized or decentralized; if decentralized,
deans or chairs)?
b. Is there written policy on their use ( for example, ratio of full-time to part-time, limits on
time base, etc.)?
3. a. How are part-timers recruited? How are they hired and rehired?
b. What are the qualifications for hiring part-time faculty (terminal degree, teaching and
professional experience)?
4. a. What are the terms of part-timers’ employment?
Length
Continuity
Amount of work assigned (time base)
b. How are the terms of employment communicated to the part-timers? 4
5. What kinds of assignments are given to part-timers?
� a. Teaching
Undergraduate, basic subjects
Undergraduate, other
Not-for-credit offerings (extension, etc.)
� b. Committee work
� c. Advising
� d. Research
� e. Other
Are b, c, d, and e volunteer or compensated assignments?
3
Collect pertinent written materials (handbooks, work-force analyses, collective bargaining contracts) and look for
exemplary practices.
4
Obtain samples of contracts
186

6. What roles do part-timers have in institutional governance?
a. Academic senate
Voting rights
Membership
b. Schools/colleges
Voting rights
c. Departments
Committees
Social events
Voting rights
7. How much are part-timers paid, and how are the rates established?
a. How much variability is there within the institution? Is there a written salary policy?
b. How is salary information communicated to part-time faculty?
c. How are salary increases handled? Are they routine? Are part-time faculty promoted?
If so, what are the requirements for promotion?
8. a. What kinds of institutional benefits are provided to part-time faculty?
Retirement plan, including 401-k
Health insurance
Dental insurance
Life insurance
Disability income
Sick leave
Vacation or other leaves
Child care
b. Are benefits available to part-time faculty based on the fraction of FTE they work (for
example, benefits only for those employed at .75 FTE or greater?
c. Can part-time faculty elect from among benefit options?
d. For what state-mandated benefits, if any, are part-time faculty eligible?
Worker’s comp
Unemployment
Other
9. How are part-time faculty oriented to the campus?
� a. Handbook
� b. Separate orientation program
� c. Mentor program
10. How are part-time faculty supported?
� a. Office space
� b. Telephone
� c. Mail service
� d. Clerical support
� e. Photocopying service
187

� f. Library privileges
� g. Support services available during the hours they teach
� h. Parking privileges
� i. [computer center privileges]
11. What professional development opportunities are available for part-time faculty?
� a. Research support
� b. Travel funds
� c. Tuition remission for themselves
� d. Leaves with pay (sabbaticals)
� e. Leaves without pay
� f. Recognition of excellence
� g. Other
12. How are part-timers supervised and evaluated? Are decisions regarding reappointment based
on evaluations?
13. Are part-time faculty eligible for any kind of job security (for example, tenure, multiple-year
appointment, seniority system)?
14. What are the most important issues [this study] ought to address?
� a. Ideal ratio of part-time to full-time faculty
� b. Improving and assessing teaching performance (for example, providing
mentors, resources on good teaching practices)
� c. Integrating part-time faculty into institutional life ( for example,
orientation, participation in governance)
� d. Fair employment practices (for example, enhancing pay and benefits)
� e. Career development opportunities (for example, providing support for
travel, research)
� f. Other
188

APPENDIX G.3: Questionnaire for All Administrators, Including Chairpersons. 5
Department Chairs to Be Interviewed
A. Selected discipline (all site institutions) [these may vary with a minimum of 3]
English
Political sciences/government
Mathematics
Music or art
Business (usually accounting and finance)
Education (teacher preparation programs)
Engineering/related technical fields
Allied health professions/sciences
B. Briefly describe your professional career.
Briefly describe your institution. Who are you? What is your mission?
1. a. What portion of total instruction is provided by part-time faculty? How many
(head count) full-time and part-time faculty are there in your unit? Can you give a
% of credit hours taught by part-time faculty and full-time faculty? How does this vary
among colleges/departments?
b. Are there limits on how many part-time faculty can be used? On how many or what
types of courses they can teach?
c. In your experience, is there some optimum ratio of part-time to full-time faculty that
balances cost, program needs, and quality of instruction?
2. a. Who controls/monitors use of part-time faculty (centralized or decentralized)?
b. Describe the pool from which you draw part-time faculty. Where do you find
Them? What kinds of qualifications (degrees, experience) do they have? Large pool?
Much turnover versus many repeat hires?
c. What motivates part-time faculty to teach at your institution?
3. What incentives do you use to attract and retain part-time faculty?
a. Salary-what is the scale, if any?
b. Benefits
c. Support services
Office space
Telephone
Mail
Clerical support
Photocopying/duplicating
Computing/word-processing equipment
Parking
5
Collect pertinent written materials (handbooks, work-force analyses, collective bargaining contracts) and look for
exemplary practices.
189

Library
Recreational facilities
Are they available during hours part-time faculty teach?
d. Professional development opportunities
Orientation to institution and department (handbook)
Orientation to teaching
Mentor teachers available to assist part-timers
Other support for instructional development and improvement
Research support
Travel funds
Tuition remission
4. What kinds of assignments are part-time faculty asked to assume?
� a. Teaching
Lower-division undergraduate courses
Upper-division undergraduate courses
Not-for-credit courses
� b. Committee work
� c. Advising
� d. Curriculum development
� e. Course coordination
� f. Research
5. Are any of these assignments (other than teaching) compensated?
1. How are part-time faculty supervised and evaluated? Are reappointments based on
evaluations of performance? How is part-time faculty teaching performance monitored?
� a. Standard student evaluation form used throughout the institution
� b. Department evaluation form
� c. Peer visitation
� d. Videotaping/portfolio analysis
� e. Other
6. Do you have any evidence that quality of teaching is better or worse when part-time rather
than full-time faculty does it?
7. How are part-time faculty integrated into the department’s life and work? Do part-time
faculty participate in college or university activities/assignments?
8. What roles do part-timers have in governance?
� a. Committees
� b. Social events
� c. Voting rights
190

9. What does the institution gain by employing part-time faculty?
� a. Financial savings
� b. Access to scarce expertise
� c. Access to current knowledge and practice
� d. Links with employers and professions
� e. Visibility/credibility
� f. Flexibility in meeting student demand
� g. Extended use of retired faculty
� h. Other
10. What does use of part-time faculty cost the institution?
� a. High turnover
� b. More nonteaching responsibility for full-time faculty
� c. Supervisory problems (continuous needs to search, recruit, orient, evaluate
part-time faculty)
� d. Morale problems
� e. Problems with quality instruction
� f. Problems with quality of faculty-student contact (advising, knowledge of
university requirements, etc.)
� g. Other
11. What trends, pressures, developments will affect your future use of part-time faculty?
� a. Fiscal problems (including tenure ratio)
� b. Quality concerns
� c. Faculty work-force issues, such as retirement trends, and availability of
faculty in high-demand fields
� d. Policy constraints (for example, budget formulas, state guidelines, worker’s
compensation, unemployment compensation, collective bargaining issues,
and legal precedents)
� e. Other
12. What are the most important issues [this study] ought to address?
� a. Ideal ratio of part-time to full-time faculty
� b. Improving and assessing teaching performance (for example, providing
mentors, resources on good teaching practices)
� c. Integrating part-time faculty into institutional life (for example, orientation,
participating in governance)
� d. Fair employment practices (for example, enhancing pay and benefits
� e. Career development opportunities (for example, providing support for
travel, research)
f. Other
191

APPENDIX H
Seating Arrangements
(Adapted from Krueger, 1994)
Circular pattern where appear as group no one person stands out is best (Merton et al., 1990)
Seating arrangements should be made based on the moderator’s determination of what type of
participant the individual may be (Krueger, 1994). The moderator must assess the level of
involvement during the informal social time while the meal is being served. The expert and
rambler may not be noticeable until the session has started. They should be arranged as follows:
♦ Dominant talkers—seat next to moderator
♦ Shy participant—seat directly across table to maximize eye contact
♦ Experts—emphasize all participants have important perceptions and need to express them
♦ Rambler—seat where one can easily discontinue eye contact after about 30 seconds
192

APPENDIX I
Assistant Moderator’s Responsibilities
(Krueger ,1994, p. 124-125 )
1. Take responsibility for all equipment.
� Tape recorder and microphone
� Extension cords (power and microphone)
� Blank tapes (90 minute tapes)
� Name tents/name tag
� Honorariums
� Marking pens
� Refreshments
� Duct tape to hold down cords
� Spare batteries
� Visuals or handouts
2. Take responsibility for refreshments.
3. Arrange the room:
� Seats should be where everyone can see each other
� Be aware of background noise problems with taping
4. Set up the equipment and verify it is working.
5. Welcome participants as they arrive.
6. Sit in the designated location:
� Outside the circle, opposite the moderator, and close to the door.
� If there is a late arrival, meet at the door, take outside and brief on what has happened
and topic being discussed
� Bring late participant in and show to seat
7. Take notes throughout discussion:
� Well said quotes: try to capture word for word
� Note nonverbal activity: head nods, physical excitement, eye contact
� Make a sketch of seating arrangements
8. Monitor recording equipment: turn over tapes when needed without drawing attention to
yourself
9. Do not participate in the discussion
� Talk only if invited by the moderator
� Control nonverbal actions
10. Ask questions when invited: at the end moderator may ask you to ask questions for
clarification or amplification.
11. Give an oral summary (this will be done by the moderator)
12. Hand out honorariums and thank the participants
13. Debrief the session with the moderator
14. Read and provide feedback on the analysis.
193

APPENDIX J
Informed Consent Form
I freely and voluntarily and without element of force or coercion, consent to be a participant in the
research project entitled “Use Of Part-Time/Adjunct Faculty In Community Colleges: A Multi-Case
Study Of Three Florida Community Colleges.”
This research is being conducted by Dorothea Taylor Bogert, who is a doctoral candidate under the
direction of Professor Joseph Beckham in the Department of Educational Leadership in the College of
Education at Florida State University. I understand the purpose of this research project is to better
understand the use of and create a profile of part-time faculty in Florida’s community colleges.
I understand that I will be asked to fill out a short paper and pencil questionnaire. I will also be asked to
participate in a focus group or individual interview with Ms. Bogert. The total time commitment would
be approximately two hours. I understand that a drawing from among the participants in the focus group
will conducted at the end of the group for a $50 gift certificate.
I understand that the researcher will audiotape the session. The researcher will keep these tapes in a
locked storage facility. I understand that only the researcher and transcriber will have access to these
tapes and that they will be destroyed by December 31, 2002.
I understand my participation is totally voluntary, and I may stop participation at anytime.
INFORMATION DURING THE COURSE OF THE STUDY WILL REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL, TO
THE EXTENT ALLOWED BY LAW. All my answers to the questions will be identified by a fictitious
name, and only this fictitious name will appear on any of the results. Any responses reported will remain
anonymous.
I understand that there are benefits for participating in this research project. I will be providing useful
information to create a better understanding of the use of part-time faculty in community colleges in
Florida.
I understand there is a possibility of foreseeable risks or discomforts to me if I agree to participate in this
study. Most notably, I may experience anxiety or discomfort discussing my personal experiences as an
adjunct faculty. I also understand that I am able to stop participation or choose to not answer any
questions at any time.
I understand that this consent may be withdrawn at any time without prejudice, penalty, or loss of benefits
to which I am otherwise entitled. I have been given the right to ask and have answered any inquiry
concerning the study.
I understand I may contact Dorothea Taylor Bogert at 863-207-4177 or at her e-mail,
Dorothea.Taylor.Bogert@juno.com for answers to questions about this research and my rights. Group
results will be sent to me upon my request.
I have read and understand this consent form.
Subject Date
194

Please complete the following survey.
Check one that applies:
APPENDIX K
Part-time/Adjunct Faculty Demographic Survey
Gender: [ ] Female [ ] Male
Race: [ ] Caucasian [ ] African American [ ] Native American
[ ] Asian [ ] Hispanic [ ] Other:
Age: Check the one that applies
[ ] 18-22 [ ] 22-26 [ ] 27-30 [ ] 31-35 [ ] 36-40
[ ] 41-45 [ ] 46-50 [ ] 51-55 [ ] 56-60 [ ] 61-65
[ ] 66 & up
Educational Level: Check highest level attained
: COMPLETED BACHELOR’S DEGREE
: COMPLETED SOME GRADUATE WORK
: COMPLETED MASTER’S DEGREE
: COMPLETED EDUCATIONAL SPECIALIST DEGREE
: COMPLETED ALL BUT DISSERTATION FOR DOCTORAL
DEGREE
: COMPLETED DOCTORAL DEGREE
Number of years you have served as an adjunct/part-time faculty:
In what areas have you taught as an adjunct faculty member? Check all that apply.
ENGLISH SOCIAL SCIENCES
MATHEMATICS MUSIC OR ART
HUMANITIES PHILOSOPHY
SCIENCE NURSING/ALLIED HEALTH
BUSINESS REMEDIAL STUDIES
EDUCATION ENGINEERING
OTHER:
Do you hold a full-time job? [ ] YES [ ] NO
If so, what is your full-time occupation?
Do you hold a part-time job besides teaching at the community college?
[ ] YES [ ] NO If so, what is your part-time job?
195

APPENDIX L
Opening and Closing Focus Groups
(Adapted from Krueger, 1994 and Merton et al., 1990)
Opening Interview
1. Welcome
Good evening and welcome to our session tonight. Thank you for taking the time to join
our discussion on part-time faculty. I am Dorothea Bogert, and my assistant is
____________. We want to find out more about who part-time faculty are, how they feel
about part-time teaching, and what motivates them to teach. We have invited adjuncts
from various departments to join us here tonight.
First, I would like for you to take a few minutes to read the informed consent in front of
you. If you have any questions concerning this consent, please feel free to ask.
Next, please take fill out the short demographic survey in front of you. It should only
take you a few minutes.
2. Overview
You were chosen to participate in this group because of your experience as part-time
faculty. Tonight we will discuss your experiences and opinions about being a part-time
faculty member. There are no right or wrong answers but rather differing points of view.
Please feel free to share your point of view even if it differs from what others have said.
3. Ground rules
Before we begin, let me share some ground rules. This is strictly a research project.
Please speak up—only one person at a time. We’re tape recording the session because
we don’t want to miss any of your comments. If several are talking at the same time, the
tape will get garbled, and we’ll miss your comments. We will be on a first name basis
tonight; if you do not want to use your real name during the taping, please feel free to
choose a pseudonym. In our later reports no names will be attached to comments. You
may be assured of complete confidentiality. Keep in mind that we’re just as interested in
negative comments as positive comments.
Our session will last about 90 minutes.
4. First question
Let’s begin. We’ve placed name cards on the table in front of you to help us remember
each other’s names. Let’s find out some more about each other by going around the
room one at a time. Tell us your name and …[go to interview questions]
Closing Focus Group
1. Final Question—Miss anything?
2. Summary of overall group
3. Thank group for attending, have drawing, wish safe journey home
196

APPENDIX M
Human Subjects Research Approval Letter
197

APPENDIX N
Guidelines For Effective Use Of Part-Time Faculty
Florida Community Colleges
The importance of part-time faculty in community colleges is virtually unchallenged today as
colleges recognize the value of the special expertise of many citizens who can enrich the
instructional program. In some subjects, part-time faculty who work full-time in the field can
provide the most current and relevant instruction that is available. In addition, the increasing
need for flexibility in scheduling and the requirement for quick responses to fluctuating
enrollments and course demands make the use of part-time faculty an important component of
academic management. However, there are certain concerns and considerations that must be
addressed as colleges work to assure that part-time faculty are fully assimilated into the work
and life of the college.
Although, there is no "magic" in the proportion of courses taught by part-time versus full-time
faculty, there is general agreement that a substantial portion of instruction should be provided by
full-time faculty to assure continuity in the curriculum and availability of faculty for student
advising, curriculum development, work with college committees, and other important non-class
activities accomplished by faculty. A reasonable ratio of full-time to part-time faculty should be
maintained in each college program, on each campus or instructional site including outreach
centers, and collegewide. Colleges must ensure that they have at least one full-time faculty
member in each degree program/ discipline as required by accrediting agencies.
When ratios of full-time to part-time faculty are considered, student semester hours or credit
hours or, in the case of occupational contact hours programs, contact hour equivalents taught
should be used as the measure rather than headcount faculty. Otherwise it will appear that a
higher proportion of a college's instruction is accomplished by part-time faculty than is actually
the case. Part-time faculty should not be used just to save money as evidenced by individuals
who are assigned full instructional loads at reduced salaries.
The following guidelines represent sound educational practices. They focus on treating this
important component of the faculty as important professionals and on assuring quality teaching
throughout the hiring and managing of part-time faculty. In keeping with Florida's long
established local governing board autonomy, each community college is responsible for
translating these precepts into instructional policies and procedures.
1. Colleges should recruit and maintain a pool of qualified part-time faculty to avoid "last
minute" hiring and placement into classes of instructors who are not prepared to begin
instruction at the first class meeting. Recruitment and selection of part-time faculty
should include appropriate screening, such as reference checks and personal interviews.
2. Qualifications of part-time faculty (i.e., academic and professional preparation and
experience) should be consistent with the Criteria for Accreditation of the Commission
on Colleges for the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools.
198

3. Orientation of part-time faculty should be conducted prior to beginning teaching or at
least within the first term to ensure that each instructor understands the mission of the
community college, the nature of the students in their classes, the expectations for their
performance, and other aspects of their assignment necessary for their success.
4. A current faculty handbook, which details expectations and college practices, should be
provided to each part-time faculty member.
5. Full-time faculty members should be assigned as mentors to new part-time faculty
members to assist with the orientation, development, and assimilation of the part-time
faculty member into the college community.
6. Part-time faculty members who have been with the college for a number of semesters
should be provided professional development opportunities to enhance their pedagogical
skills, knowledge of their subjects, and sense of involvement with the college
community.
7. Colleges should provide an appropriate workspace for part-time faculty to prepare for
classes and meet with students before and after classes, and they should require clearly
identified times for part-time faculty to be available to their students outside of scheduled
instruction.
8. Part-time faculty should be provided with a sample course syllabus for each course they
teach, and they should be required to submit a copy of the syllabus they use for each
course they teach to be filed with their supervisor.
9. Part-time faculty should be provided mail services, access to library, audio-visual and
other media and technology services and resources, telephones, and word
processing/clerical and copying support.
10. Evaluation and supervision of part-time faculty should include periodic visits to the
classroom and follow-up interviews as well as other procedures used to evaluate full-time
faculty such as student feedback.
11. Part-time faculty members should retain their student class records for 12 months
following the end of the term and submit a copy of the official grade report and grade
book to be retained by the appropriate authority.
12. Colleges should, when appropriate, invite part-time faculty to participate in departmental
and college faculty meetings and professional development activities and include parttime
faculty on the distribution list for college newsletters and other publications.
13. Compensation for teaching by part-time faculty should be understood to cover not only
the course hours but also out-of-class activities such as course preparation, orientation,
faculty meetings, and identified hours to meet with students outside the class time.
14. Colleges should consider implementing a program to recognize part-time faculty for
outstanding teaching performance.
199

Adopted by the Council of Instructional Affairs
and recommended to the Council of Presidents
February 10, 1994
Approved by the State Board of Community Colleges
September 9, 1994
Taken from Division of Community Colleges Website: http://www.dcc.firn.edu/policy/POL-21.HTM
200

REFERENCES
American Association of University Professors (AAUP). (1998). Statement from the
conference on the growing use of part-time and adjunct faculty. Academe, 84 (1), 54-60.
Antony, J. S., & Valadez, J. R. (1998, November). An exploration of the job satisfaction
of American part-time college faculty. Presented at the Annual Meeting of Association for the
Study of Higher Education, Miami, FL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 427
597)
Avakian, A. N. (1995). Conflicting demands for adjunct faculty. Community College
Journal, 65 (6), 34-36.
Baker, R., & Hinton, R. (1999). Do focus groups facilitate meaningful participation in
social research? In R. S. Barbour & J. Kitzinger (Eds.), Developing focus group research:
Politics, theory and practice. (pp. 79-98). London: Sage.
Balch, P. (1999). Part-time faculty are here to stay. Planning for Higher Education, 27
(3), 32-41.
Banachowski, G. (1996a). ERIC review: Perspectives and perceptions: The use of parttime
faculty in community colleges. Community College Review, 24 (2), 49-62.
Banachowski, G. (1996b). Perspectives and perceptions: A review of the literature on
the use of part-time faculty in community colleges. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 398 943)
Beck, R.C. (2000). Motivation: Theories and principles. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Behrendt, R. L., & Parsons, M. H. (1983). Evaluation of part-time faculty. In A. Smith
(Ed.), Evaluating Faculty and Staff. (p. 33-43). New Directions for Community Colleges (41).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Benjamin, E. (1998). Variations in the characteristics of part-time faculty by general
fields of instruction and research. New Directions for Higher Education, 26 (4), 45-59.
Benjet, R. G., & Loweth, M. (1989). A perspective on the academic underclass, the
part-timers. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 16 (1), 40-42.
201

Berger, A., Kirshstein, R., Zhang, Y., & Carter, K. (2002). A profile of part-time faculty:
Fall 1998. (National Center for Education Statistics Work Paper No. 2002-08) Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Bethke, R., & Nelson, V. (1994, May). Collaborative efforts to improve conditions for
adjunct faculty. Paper presented at the Annual International Conference of the National Institute
for Staff and Organizational Development on Teaching Excellence and Conference of
administrators, Austin, TX. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 373 822)
Biles, G. E., & Tuckman, H. P. (1986). Part-time faculty personnel management
policies. NY: ACE-MacMillan Publishing Company.
Bolge, R. D. (1995). Examination of student learning as a function of instructor status
(full-time versus part-time) at Mercer County Community College. Trenton, NJ: Mercer County
Community College. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 382 241)
Borden, V. M. & Brown, P. C. (June 23, 2003). The view from the top: The top 100
associate’s degree producers. Community College Weekly. [On-line]. Available:
www.ccweek.com/top100/index.asp.
Brewer, D., & Gray, M. (2000). Connecting college and community in the new
economy? An analysis of community college faculty-labor market linkages. Berkley, CA:
National Center for Research in Vocational Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 411 033)
Bridges, W. (1994). The end of the job. Fortune, 130 (6), 61-74.
Burgess, L. A., & Samuel, C. (1999). Impact of full-time versus part-time instructor
status on college student retention and academic performance in sequential courses. Community
College Journal of Research and Practice, 23 (5), 487-498.
Burns, M. (1992). Women, part-time faculty, and illusion. The NEA Higher Education
Journal, 8 (1), 13-28.
Clark, B. R. (1988, March). The absorbing errand. Remarks presented at the National
Conference of the American Association of Higher Education, Washington, DC. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 354 950)
Clark, B. R. (1997). Small worlds, different worlds: The uniqueness and troubles of
American academic professions. Daedulus, 126, (4), 21-42.
Clery, S. (1998). Faculty in academe. Washington, DC: National Education
Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 423 740)
Cline, L. (1993). Work to school transition: Part-time faculty bring expertise,
challenges to colleges. Vocational Education Journal, 68 (2), 26-27, 49.
202

Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (1989). The American Community College (2 nd ed.).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cohen, M. C. (1992, November). Benefits on a budget: Addressing adjunct needs.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Chicago, IL.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 355 578)
Conley, V. M., Leslie, D. W., & Zimbler, L. J. (2002). Part-time instruction faculty and
staff: Who they are, what they do, and what they think. (NCES 2002-163). Jessup, MD: U.S.
Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Crabtree, B. F., Yanoshik, M. K., Miller, W. L., & O’Connor, P. J. (1993). Selecting
individual or group interviews. In D. L. Morgan (Ed.), Successful focus groups: Advancing the
state of the art (pp. 137-149). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Cresswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Curzon-Brown, D. (1988). The gripes of wrath. Teaching English in the Two-Year
College, 15 (3), 195-198.
Delaney, B. (2001, January 11). Second-class careerists? The long halls of ivy: Adjunct
professors. [Online]. Available:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/CAREER/trends/01/110adjunct/index.html.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.) (1998). The landscape of qualitative research.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Dickinson, R. (1997). The changing role of community college faculty: Implications in
the literature. Community College Review, 26 (4), 25-31.
Digranes, J. L. A., & Digranes, S. H. (1995). Current and proposed uses of technology
for training part-time faculty. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 19 (2), 161-
169.
Division of Community Colleges. (2003a). The fact book: Report for the Florida
Community College System. Tallahassee, FL: Author.
Division of Community Colleges. (2003b). Facts at a glance. [On-line]. Available:
http://www.dcc.firn.edu/facts.htm.
Division of Community Colleges. (2003c). FLCCS Overview. [On-line]. Available:
http://www.dcc.firn.edu/overview.htm
203

Eberhardt, B. J., & Shani, A. B. (1984). The effects of full-time versus part-time
employment status on attitudes toward specific organizational characteristics and overall job
satisfaction.
Edmunds, H. (1999). The focus group research handbook. Chicago: NTC Business
Books.
Eells, W. C. (1931). The junior college. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Engleberg, I. N. (1993, November). The emerging professoriate in community colleges.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association, Miami
Beach, FL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 368 020)
Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing naturalistic
inquiry: A guide to methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Erwin, J., & Andrews, H. A. (1993). State of part-time faculty services at community
colleges in a nineteen-state region. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 17
(6), 555-562.
Farrell, T. J. (1992). How to kill higher education. Academe, 78 (6), 30-33.
Fedler, F., Counts, T., & Stoner, K. R. (1989). Adjunct profs grade higher than faculty
at three schools. Educator, 44 (2), 32-37.
Feldman, D. C. (1990). Reconceptualizing the nature of consequences of part-time
work. Academy of Management Review, 15 (1), 103-112.
Fern, E. F. (1982). The use of focus groups for idea generation: The effects of group
size, acquaintanceship, and moderator on response quantity and quality. Journal of Marketing
Research, 19 (1), 1-13.
Finucane, M. C., & Algren, M. E. (1997, November). A pilot study investigation of the
socialization of part-time faculty members in academic settings. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the National Communication Association, Chicago, IL. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 424 596)
Firestone, W. A. (1987). Meaning in method: The rhetoric of quantitative and
qualitative research. Educational researcher, 16 (7), 16-21.
Florida Community College System. (1994). Guidelines for Effective Use of Part-time
Faculty. In Florida Community Colleges Guidelines and Procedures Manual. [Online].
Available: http://www.dcc.firn.edu/policy/POL-21.HTM
Franklin, P., Laurence, D., & Denham, R. D. (1988). When solutions become problems:
Taking a stand on part-time employment. Academe, 74, 15-19.
204

Freeland, R. S. (1998). Adjunct faculty in the community college. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 424 899)
Frey, J. H., & Fontana, A. (1993). The group interview in social research. In D. L.
Morgan (Ed.), Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art (pp. 20-34). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Gappa, J. (2000). The new faculty majority: Somewhat satisfied but not eligible for
tenure. New Directions for institutional research, (105), 77-86.
Gappa, J. M., & Leslie, D. W. (1993). The invisible faculty: Improving the status of
part-timers in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gappa, J. M., & Leslie, D. W. (1997). Two faculties or one? The conundrum of parttimers
in a bifurcated work force. AAHE Working Paper Series no. 6. Washington, DC:
American Association for Higher Education.
Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In C.
Geertz, The interpretation of culture (p. 3-30). New York: Basic Books.
German, K. M. (1996). Part-time faculty: Identifying the trends and challenges. JACA
(3), 231-241.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of guided theory: Strategies for
qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
Grenzke, J. (1998). Part-time faculty: Quality issues. Washington, DC: National
Education Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 417 685)
Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries.
Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 29, 75-92.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. (1988). Do inquiry paradigms imply inquiry methodologies?
In D. M. Fetterman (ED.), Qualitative approaches to evaluation in education (p. 89-115). New
York: Praeger.
Sage.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA:
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1998). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In
N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.). The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues.
(pp. 195-220). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Haeger, J. D. (1998). Part-time faculty, quality programs, and economic realities. New
Directions for Higher Education, 26 (4), 81-88.
205

Hagedorn, L. S. (1996). Wage equity and female faculty job satisfaction: The role of
wage differentials in a job satisfaction causal model. Review of Higher Education, 37 (5), 569-
598.
Hagedorn, L.S. (2000a). Conceptualizing faculty job satisfaction: Components,
theories, and outcomes. New Directions for Institutional Research, (105), 5-20.
Hagedorn, L.S. (Ed.) (2000b). What contributes to job satisfaction among faculty and
staff, Editor’s Notes. New Directions for Institutional Research, (105), 1-3.
Hawkins, B. D. (1993). Sharp pro and con division on merits of part-time faculty.
Community College Weekly.
Hayes, H. H. (1984). Elements of job satisfaction and conditions of employment among
part-time instructors in community colleges: A model for employing part-time faculty members
in Washington community colleges. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI.
Heinberg, S. (1966). Procedures for supervision and evaluation of new part-time
evening-division instructors in California junior colleges. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Southern California.
Heinzelman, K. (1986). The English lecturers at Austin: Our new M.I.A.’s. Academe,
72, 25-31.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work. New
York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Hoerner, J. L. (1991). Professional development programs in community and technical
colleges: Are occupational-technical faculty well served? Journal of Studies in Technical
Careers, 13 (4), 351-360.
Iadevaia, D. G. (1991, November). A comparison of full-time to part-time faculty and
full-time to part-time science faculty in terms of student success at Pima Community College.
(Ed.D. Major Applied Research Project, Nova University). (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 339 403)
Iaffaldano, M. T. & Muchinsky, P.M. (1985). Job satisfaction and job performance.
Psychological Bulletin, 97, 233-250.
Impara, J. C., Hoerner, J. L., Clowes, D. A., & Alkins, M. T. (1991). Professional
development programs: A comparison of full- and part-time occupational-technical faculty.
Community College Catalyst, 21 (2), 8-12.
206

Jablin, F. M. (1987). Organizational entry, assimilation, and exit. In F. Jablin, L.
Putnam, K. Roberts, & L. Porter (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication: An
interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 679-740). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Jackofsky, E. F., & Peters, L. H. (1987). Part-time versus full-time employment status
differences: A replication and extension. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 8 (1), 1-9.
Jacobs, F. (1998). Using part-time faculty more effectively. New Directions for Higher
Education, 26 (104), 9-18.
Jacobs, R. & Solomon T. (1977). Strategies for enhancing the prediction of job
performance from job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 417-421.
Jones, G. R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers’ adjustments to
organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 262-279.
Kelly, D. K. (1990). A human resources development approach to part-time faculty in
the community college. (Unpublished Master thesis, Claremont Graduate School, Redlands,
CA). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 316 379)
Kelly, D. K. (1991, May). Part-time faculty in the community college: A study of their
qualifications, frustrations, and involvements. Paper presented at the Annual Forum of the
Association for Institutional Research, San Francisco, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 336 035)
Kirshstein, R. J., Matheson, N., Jing, Z., Zimbler, L. J. (1997). Instructional faculty and
staff in higher education institutions: Fall 1987 and Fall 1992. 1993 National Study of
Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF-93). Statistical Analysis Report. Washington, DC: National
Center for Education Statistics. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 412 888)
Knodel, J. (1993). The design and analysis of focus groups studies. In D. L. Morgan
(Ed.), Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art (pp. 35-50). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Krueger, R. A. (1993). Quality control in focus group research. In D. L. Morgan (Ed.),
Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art (pp. 65-85). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. (2 nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Langenberg, D. N. (1998). The subfaculty. New Directions for Higher Education, 26
(104), 39-44.
Lankard, B. A. (1993). Part-time faculty in adult and vocational education. Columbus,
OH: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 363 797)
207

Lawler, E. E. (1971). Pay and organizational effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lee, J. (1997). Part-time employment in academe. Washington, DC: National
Education Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 403 807)
Leslie, D. W. (Ed.). (1998a). The growing use of part-time faculty: Understanding
causes and effects. New Directions for Higher Education, 26 (104), San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Leslie, D. W. (1998b). New directions for research, policy development, and practice.
New Directions for Higher Education, 26 (4), 95-100.
Leslie, D. W. (1998c). Part-time, adjunct, and temporary faculty: The new majority?
Report of the Sloan Conference on part-time and adjunct faculty. Arlington, VA: Alfred P.
Sloan Foundation.
Leslie, D. W., Kellams, S. E., & Gunne, G. M. (1982). Part-time faculty in American
higher education. New York, NY: Praeger.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Littrell, J. L. (1990). Occupational training for the real world: Bridging the classroom to
corporation gap. Proceedings of the National Conference on Professional Development of Parttime
Occupational/Technical Faculty. Washington, DC: Office of Vocational and Adult
Education. (ERIC Reproduction Service No. ED 326 294)
Lombardi, J. (1992). The ambiguity of the part-time faculty. In A. M. Cohen (Ed.).
Perspectives on the community college: Essays by John Lombardi. (pp. 51-67). Washington,
DC: American Council on Education.
Lundy, K. L. P., & Warme, B. D. (1990). Gender and career trajectory: the case of parttime
faculty. Studies in Higher Education, 15 (2), 207-222.
MacFarland, T. W. (1998). A comparison of final grades awarded by full-time faculty
and part-time faculty by academic center for Winter term, 1997. Ft. Lauderdale, FL: Nova
Southeastern University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 429 482)
Mangan, K. S. (1991, August 7). Many colleges fill vacancies with part-time professors,
citing economy and uncertainty about enrollments. Chronicle of Higher Education, A 9-10.
Marits, E.. (1996). Professional development of adjunct faculty. In Biancho-Bianco-
Mathis, V. & Chalofsky, N. (Eds.), The adjunct faculty handbook. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Sage.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1989). Designing qualitative research. Newbury Park:
Maslow, A.H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper.
208

McCracken, G. (1988). The long interview. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.
McGuire, J. (1993). Part-time faculty: Partners in excellence. Leadership Abstracts, 6
(6), 1-3. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 367 429)
Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Merton, R. K., Fiske, M., & Kendall, P. L. (1990). The focused interview: A manual of
problems and procedures (2 nd ed.). New York: The Free Press.
Michell, L. (1999). Combining focus groups and interviews: telling how it is; telling
how it feels. In R. S. Barbour & J. Kitzinger (Eds.), Developing focus group research: Politics,
theory and practice. (pp. 36-46). London: Sage.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A source book of
new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Miller, H. E., & Terborg, J. R. (1979). Job attitudes of part-time and full-time
employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64 (4), 380-386.
Mize, R. (1998). Full-time part-time faculty: A proposal for perspective. Sacramento:
CA, Community College League of California. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No.
ED 427 800)
Monroe, C., & Denman, S. (1991). Assimilating adjunct faculty: Problems and
opportunities. ACA Bulletin, 77, 56-62.
Morgan, D. L. (1992). Designing focus group research. In M. Stewart, F. Tudiver, M. J.
Bass, E. V. Dunn, & P. G. Norton (Eds.), Tools for primary care research (pp. 194-208).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Morgan, D. L. (Ed.). (1993). Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2 nd ed.) (Qualitative
Research Method Series, Vol. 16). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morgan, D. L., & Krueger, R. A. (1993). When to use focus groups and why. In D. L.
Morgan (Ed.), Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art (pp. 3-19). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Nance, G., & Culverhouse, R. (1991-92). The hidden costs of part-time faculty.
Planning for Higher Education, 20 (2), 30-38.
209

National Center for Education Statistics (1990). Faculty in higher education institutions,
1988. (NCES No. 90-365). Washington, DC: Department of Education.
National Center for Education Statistics (1997a). Instructional Faculty and Staff in
Higher Education Institutions: Fall 1987 and Fall 1992. Washington, DC: Department of
Education.
National Center for Education Statistics (1997b). National Study of Postsecondary
Faculty NSOPF: 88/92. Washington, DC: Department of Education.
Osborn, R. (1990). Part-time faculty development. What do we know and what can we
use? Community Services Catalyst, 20 (2), 17-21.
Palmer, J. (1987). Community Technical and Junior Colleges: A summary of selected
national data. Washington, DC: American Association of Community and Junior Colleges.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 292 507)
Parsons, M. H. (1998, April). How the other 2/3 live: Institutional initiatives for parttime
faculty assimilation in America’s 2-year colleges. Paper presented at the Annual
Convention of the AACC, Miami, FL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 417 793)
Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Sage.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA:
Petty, M.M., McGee, G. W., & Cavender, J.W. (1984). A meta-analysis of the
relationships between individual job satisfaction and individual performance. Academy of
Management Review, 9, 712-721.
Phelan, A. (1986, June). Boundary-spanning professionals: Value-adding roles for parttime
faculty. Pratt Institute’s strategy to enhance its curriculum. Paper presented at a conference
sponsored by Empire State college on Value-Added Learning: New Strategies for Excellence in
Education and Training, Saratoga Springs, NY. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
279 233)
Pollington, M. (1991, March). Part-time teachers—or teachers who work part-time?
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and
Communication, Boston, MA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 331 083)
210

Pollington, M. (1992, March). A tale of two campuses: The part-time English teacher at
Brigham Young University and Utah Valley Community College. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Cincinnati, OH.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 345 255)
Rainey, H. (2001). Work motivation. In R. T. Golembiewski (Ed.), Handbook of
organizational behavior (pp. 19-42). New York: Marcell Dekker, Inc.
Rhodes, G. (1996). Reorganizing the faculty workforce for flexibility: Part-time
professional labor. The Journal of Higher Education, 67 (6), 626-659.
Rifkin, T. (1998). Differences between the professional attitudes of full- and part-time
faculty. Los Angeles, CA: ERIC Clearinghouse for Community Colleges. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 417 783)
Robertson, L. J., & Bean, J. P. (1997, March). Job satisfaction for women faculty
members in a predominantly female discipline. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 406 895)
Roderer, L., & Weissbecker, B. (1990). Perspectives on part-time teaching in
community colleges: Pressures, politics, and prospects. VCCA Journal: Journal of the Virginia
Community College Association, 5 (1), 28-32. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
348 079)
Rossman, G. B., & Wilson, B. L. (1985). Numbers and words: Combining quantitative
and qualitative methods in a single large-scale evaluation study. Evaluation Review, 9 (5), 627-
643.
Roueche, J. E., Roueche, S. D., & Milliron, M. D. (1995). Strangers in their own land:
Part-time faculty in American community colleges. Washington, DC: Community College
Press. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 381 194)
Roueche, J. E., Roueche, S. D., & Milliron, M. D. (1996a). Identifying the strangers:
exploring part-time faculty integration in American community colleges. Community College
Review, 23 (4), 33-48.
Roueche, J. E., Roueche, S. D., & Milliron, M. D. (1996b). In the company of strangers:
Addressing the utilization and integration of part-time faculty in American community colleges.
Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 20 (2), 105-117.
SACS. (2000). Criteria for Accreditation. [Online]. Available:
http://www.sacscoc.org/criteria.asp
211

Samuel, F. M. (1989). A strategy to eliminate inequality of higher education
opportunities by improving adjunct faculty performance. Community College Review, 17 (2),
41-47.
Schwandt, T. A., & Halpern, E. S. (1988). Linking auditing and metaevaluation.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Selvadurai, R. H. (1990). Advantages and disadvantages of hiring part-time faculty in
higher education. Community College Review, 10 (1-2), 198.
Sheeks, G. L. (1998). Engaging part-time faculty: Institutional and departmental issues.
Paper presented at AAHE Conference on Faculty Roles and Rewards, San Diego, CA.
Silvers, P. J. (1990). Utilization of associate faculty at Pima Community College: A
report on surveys of college associate faculty and department heads. Tucson, AZ: Pima
Community College, Office of Research and Planning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 329 320)
Spangler, M. S. (1990). Part-time faculty: Recognizing an unprotected minority.
(Position Paper 120). Los Angeles, CA: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 321 793)
Spector, P. E. (1997). Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Causes, and
Consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Spinetta, K. I. (1990). Part-time instructors in the California community colleges: A
need to revise current policies. Community College Review, 18 (1), 43-49.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Styne, M. M. (1997). Those unfamiliar names and faces: The hiring, management, and
evaluation of part-time faculty. Teaching English In the Two-Year College, 24 (1), 50-55.
Sworder, S. (1987). Determination of the effect of an instructor’s employment status
(full-time or part-time) on the decision of students to enroll. (Ed.D. Practicum, Nova
University). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 277 408)
Thompson, D. M. (1995). Alternative approaches to adjunct faculty development.
Princeton, NJ: Mid-Career Fellowship Program. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 384 392)
Thompson, K. (1992a). Piecework to parity: Part-timers in action. The NEA Higher
Education Journal, 8 (1), 29-37.
Thompson, K. (1992b). Recognizing mutual interests. Academe, 78 (6), 22-26.
212

Thompson, K. (1994, May). Central contingencies: Part-time faculty and the future of
higher education. Paper presented at the conference for Academic Unionism and Part-Time
Faculty: Strategies for Change, New York, NY. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 387 052)
Todd, A. (1996, June). A paradigm shift: Recruiting, training, and developing part-time
faculty. Paper presented at the Annual Teaching for a Change Conference, Aurora, CO. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 397 927)
Townsend, R. B. (2000). Part-time faculty surveys highlight disturbing trends. [On-
Line]. Available: http://www.theaha.org/perspectives/issues/2000/0010/pt_survey.htm
Truell, A. D., Price, Jr., W. T., Joyner, R. L. (1998). Job satisfaction amount community
college occupational-technical faculty. Community College Journal of Research and Practices,
22 (2), 111-122.
Tucker, A. (1993). Chairing the academic department. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx.
Tuckman, H. P. (1978). Who is part-time in academe? AAUP Bulletin, 64 (4), 305-315.
Twigg, H. P. (1989, November). Uses and abuses of adjunct faculty in higher education.
Paper presented at a National Conference of the Community College Humanities Association,
Washington, DC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 311 984)
Van Maanen, J. (1975). Breaking in: Socialization to work. In R. Dubin (Ed.),
Handbook of work, organization, and society. (pp. 67-120). Greenwich, CN: JAI Press.
Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational
socialization. In B. M. Shaw (Ed.), Research organizational behavior (pp. 209-264).
Greenwich, CN: JAI Press.
Wallace, M.E. (ed.) (1984). Part-time academic employment in the humanities. New
York: The Modern Language Association of America.
Wallace, M. E. (1984). The richness of language and the poverty of part-timers: Impact
and invisibility. College English, 46, (580-586.).
Weglarz, S. (1998). JCCC survey of adjunct faculty, 1997. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED)
Williams, J. P. (1994). Part-time evaluation: A campus case study. Proceedings of the
National Conference on Successful College Teaching. Gainesville, FL: Institute of Higher
Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 390 454)
213

Williams, M. L., & Wiatrek, D. (1986). An analysis of the communication systems of
part and full-time instructors in community colleges. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the International Communication Association, Chicago, IL. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 270 829)
Williamson, L. V., & Mulholland, K. (1993, May). Adjuncts disjunct? Your
institution’s defunct. Paper presented at the Annual International Conference of the National
Institute for Staff and Organizational Development on Teaching Excellence and Conference of
Administrators, Austin, TX. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 382 262)
Wilson, S. (1977). The use of ethnographic techniques in educational research. Review
of educational research, 47 (1), 245-265.
Wolfe, G. (1970). Need gratification theory: A theoretical reformulation of job
satisfaction/dissatisfaction and job motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 34 (1), 87-94.
Wolff, B., Knodel, J., & Sittitrai, W. (1993). Focus groups as complementary research
methods: A Case Example. In D. L. Morgan (Ed.), Successful focus groups: Advancing the
state of the art (pp. 118-136). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Wyles, B. A. (1998). Adjunct faculty in the community college: Realities and
challenges. New Directions for Higher Education, 26 (104), 89-93.
Sage.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park, CA:
214

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Dorothea Taylor Bogert was born in Lakeland, Florida and raised in Auburndale, FL
where she attended Auburndale High School. She completed her B.S. degree in Liberal Studies
at the University of Central Florida in 1987. She received her M.S. in Higher Education in 1992
from Florida State University. She completed her Ph.D. work in the Spring of 2004.
Dorothea, a licensed Florida real estate broker, is currently serving as the Managing
Broker for Mid-Florida Realty, Inc. in the Central Florida area. She is also a licensed Florida
Mortgage Broker. She has worked as an adjunct instructor at Polk Community College teaching
Ethics, where her interest in the use of adjuncts began.
Dorothea is married to Theodore L. Bogert, Sr.
215