Faculty Senate Agenda – MINUTES January 23, 2018
Present:
Jeff Pickerd, Patrick Alexander, Nancy Wicker, Brice Noonan, Brad Jones, Zia Shariat-Madar, Brenda
Prager, Randy Wadkins, Chris Mullen, Aileen Ajootian, Tossi Ikuta, Byung Jang, Lei Cao, Tom Franklin,
Adam Gussow, Andrew Lynch, Jennifer Gifford, KoFan Lee, Zachary Kagan Guthrie, Vivian Ibrahim,
April Holm, Evangeline Robinson, Alysia Steele, Antonia Eliason, Stacey Lantagne, Dennis Bunch,
Kimberly Kaiser, Cecelia Parks, Amy Gibson, Sumali Conlon, Cesar Rego, Martial Longla, Tejas
Pandya, Sarah Wellman, Thomas Peattie, Mary Roseman, Chalet Tan, Megan Rosenthal, Gary Theilman,
Deborah Mower, Breese Quinn, Tim Nordstrom, Marilyn Mendolia, Chrisitan Sellar, Younghee Lim,
Marcos Mendoza, Mark Ortwein, Jessica Essary, Rory Ledbetter, Michael Barnett, Derek Cowherd
Absent:
Ethel Scurlock, John Berns, Stephen Fafulas, Ana Velitchkova, Roy Thurston,
• Call Meeting to Order
o Called to order at 6:00
• Approval of December 5 2017 Minutes
o Approved – no opposition
• Dr. Katrina Caldwell –Vice Chancellor for Diversity and Community Engagement
o Dr. Caldwell will discuss her work since arriving on campus as our first VC for
Diversity & Community Engagement and provide insight into her plans for the
future.
o Wants a conversation with faculty
o Has been here 1 yr. and 20 days
o Only two other campuses have diversity and community engagement in one office
o Has met with numerous people across campus to develop a list of activities that
she would like to see happen on campus
 Come up with theme areas
• Infrastructure and branding
• Campus climate
o Currently getting baseline measures to determine if changes
are being made
o Opportunity to tell the campus story
 Asking: how do people understand their experience
on campus?
• Research
o Understanding best practices, so that we can apply them on
our campus
 Ex. Lots of campuses are doing bias response work,
but there is lots of research that tells us there are
good and bad ways of doing this without
jeopardizes our campus climate
• Curriculum
o Where are there opportunities to engage with faculty
developing courses, understanding how different groups
learn, improving retention
• Development/fundraising
o Every year there is a decrease in pubic support, but an
increase in public expectations
o There are more and more private enterprises investing in
diversity work
 These organizations want to understand, use, and
develop best practices
 Want to hire two assistant vice chancellors that work on diversity and
community engagement: (1) will work in crisis and incident management,
faculty and staff, CICCE (Center for Inclusion and Cross Cultural
Engagement) students and (2) will work in infrastructure (community
engagement), Mclean Institute and William Winter Institute) – hope to
start a search for these positions in the neat future
 Questions:
• Q: What are the two other institutions where these positions are
combined?
o A: Texas at Austin and Utah
• Q: Will your group have resources to help recruit diverse faculty?
o A: The plan is yes through the strategic plan. They will be
investigating how, where, and with what can they support.
University of Maryland has some great best practices. We
wanted to develop some specific goals as it relates to
diversity in faculty; how will we do that successfully – do a
case study? What does the research tell us? What resources
do we need to be successful?
• Q: When will those searches happen?
o A: Funding has been approved and we just need to move it
through the HR process.
• Q: What role if any will your office play in campus
contextualization?
o A: There is a contextualization ceremony committee to help
finish the process of showing the plaques to the
community. Moving forward based on a vote from Senate
we will developing a sub-committee on the sensitivity and
respect committee focused on contextualization. Will also
work on a definition of diversity, annual dialogue series on
challenges on campus talking to experts, a communications
group will help the chancellor craft language for external
communications about the campus.
 Upcoming planning events
• Diversity plan and search update was to happen on one of the
recent snow days. The goals were:
o To figure out how we have done since I was hired
o Data is currently being circulated for feedback
• Diversity planning retreat
o Strategic planning
• Campus leadership diversity development (Feb 5)
o Will have an outside consultant to get a sense of where we
are as a campus
• Campus wide summit (Mar 8)
 M-Partner announcement coming Mar 8
• Multiple communities chosen
• Want faculty engagement in the process
 Carnegie Classification designation being sought
 Questions
• Q: What are your thoughts on outreach into the county? What
kinds of conversations have you been having?
o A: We have had lots of meetings with community members
and community organizations. “Oxford” is often considered
the community, but many people in our community don’t
have access to the “Oxford” community resources.
 F/U: In the public schools of Oxford, MS it seems
that integration was smoother than in other places in
the state. I don’t know if that is true, but it strikes
me that it was better than we might otherwise think.
• F/U: I am not sure I know the answer to that.
But my observation is that many of the
issues are more implicit and related to class
and resources (access to technology $75)
than explicit biases being articulated. But
more investigation is certainly needed in this
area.
• Sarah Bartlett Wilson – Chair of Non-Tenure Track Representation Task Force
o Ms. Wilson will present a proposed modification of the UM Faculty Senate
Bylaws & Constitution that would permit non-tenure-track faculty participation.
 Anne Marie Liles and Carrie Smith co-presenters
o Task force created about 1 year ago
o Mission statement – to help the university to live up to its own mission – NTT
faculty are the only group on campus that doesn’t have access to shared
governance.
o In terms of whole person time about 50% of faculty on campus is NTT
 Meaning that most of service responsibilities fall to half of faculty (i.e.
tenure track faculty)
o When you look at public R1’s 88% include full-time NTT faculty on senate
 Only 12% allow part time tenure track
o Three branches of work completed to date by task-force
 Scholarship on services and best practices
 Looking into other institutions’ language (bylaws and policy)
• Best practices include
o Include part-time faculty
o Not restricting seats
 Polling on campus
o The proposed changes in brief:
 Departmental size is based on full-time equivalents (FTEs) not tenure lines
• For NTT teaching faculty is 12 credit hours per teaching
• FTEs measure teaching capacity not teaching load
 Eligibility to serve – have been on campus for 1 yr. and benefits eligible
• Will still exclude administrators
 Include research faculty
• Need assistance with how to define and include this group?
o Current idea is to include them in their own units
o Based on fall 2016 data the proposed changes would result in fewer members (57
 54)
 But the proposal is to continue to work with the numbers to figure out the
best approach.
o Website: edblogs.olemiss.edu/nttfacultyandsharedgovernance
o Questions:
 Q: One of these biggest concerns I have is the idea of the research faculty
should be included as a separate unit that is not an academic unit
• A: The first intention was to diversify the kinds of voices heard on
the faculty senate. There may be a natural home for these faculty
members in Departments. But we don’t know the best approach at
this time.
o F/U: Some of the things that faculty senate discusses would
pertain to them.
 F/U: Research faculty in physics, for example, have
natural departmental homes that I feel that they
should be counted under.
 Q: Have you discussed with tenure faculty from departments about NTT
faculty?
• A: We have some members on our task force
o F/U: We have done some work, but we would be curious to
know what faculty concerns are and we can find some data
for that.
 Q: I agree that NTT faculty should be involved in shared governance, but
in my opinion, they are already represented through the tenure track
faculty rep. They bring concerns to our department meetings and I can
bring them here.
• A: I think that is fair, but that is not the same for all departments.
Some NTT are not informed of department meetings and many do
not feel they are allowed to attend department meetings.
 Comment: I polled all NTT in chemistry and they said that they didn’t
want service.
• Response: Again, this is not the same for all departments.
• Response 2: I think that there are lots of people who want to be
involved and they should be given the chance to serve.
 Comment: The numbers you showed in terms of the number of NTT may
be representative of general shift away tenure positions. Tenured faculty
have protections, that NTT do not have.
 Q: Why this body? How does this impact our responsibilities on this
body?
• A: One voice of all faculty is stronger
• F/U: It feels like there have been divergent opinions amongst NTT.
Why not develop your own body and then think about coming
together?
o A: I don’t think our concerns are ultimately that different.
 Q: What was the survey response rate?
• A: There are about 600 NTT faculty on campus – we got a 22%
response rate.
 Q: One of the concerns was that NTT are excluded from department
meetings will this help with that?
• A: We have talked about that and would hope that would happen.
But we are not going to legislate how departments function.
 Comment: It seems to me that the only departments that will have NTT
faculty are those that have multiple seats
• Response: At the beginning we expect that will happen. But over
time we expect that will change.
 Q: The other change I noticed that the language changed from Oxford
campus to not UMMC?
• A: Yes, that will change and regional campuses will also be added
o F/U: Okay, but that could also change the numbers of
people on the campus. Could you send out the table with
the numbers of reps from each department (will get table to
Brice)
 Q: My department will lose a seat on senate; how do I pitch that to our
department?
• A: That number changes every year. I also think it would be good
to talk to NTT faculty to see about their thoughts on being directly
represented on senate.
 Q: Why would including NTT improve equality and representation on
campus? Why do you think that representation on faculty senate is
insufficient? What do you think the work of the senate is?
• A: You speak for us, but we are not specifically represented on
campus. Why do I not count as a faculty member? Why wouldn’t
you want a 1200 strong faculty? I think divided is a bad idea.
• F/U: WE don’t count as member of this campus. We may talk to
you outside of department, but you do not officially represent us.
 Comment: I think that you are trying to address non-representation in your
department by getting representation on senate?
• F/U: Some of us feel like we represent NTT faculty, but that is not
the same across all departments.
• Response: We would also like to help lessen tenure track work
load by participating.
 Comment: You don’t actually need to be on faculty senate to serve the
university. The other thing that is possible is to work with departments to
get representation in department meetings.
 Q: Thank you for showing and taking a lot of heat on this topic. You
started with a statistic that 88% of peer institutions have NTT
representation. Was that representative? Would you be willing to have
non-voting members?
• A: That 88% runs the gamete of all are welcome to serve to here
are some specific seats for NTT. Non-voting members are not
equal.
• F/U: Auburn for example does not allow NTT to be on tenure track
specific committees.
• F/U: We can share data from research at other institutions.
 Q: How wide-spread is the desire to have NTT representation on campus?
• A: This current task-force started organically. We have tried to
have many conversations across campus, we have met twice per
month to do the research presented here, and to collect the data.
• F/U: When we started this process, we were not sure what
representation would look like.
 Q: Thank you for all of your work on this. If you were representing both
NTT and tenure track faculty shouldn’t they get to vote?
• A: That is best practices right now.
 Q: How do we protect NTT faculty from chairs saying that they don’t
want to burden tenure track faculty?
• A: The one-year requirement of being on campus was intended to
address that concern.
 Looking at my department our NTT faculty don’t want to be on senate
because they appreciate the breadth of work/exposure tenure track faculty
have and bring to these discussions. You mention the 88% number, but
that number is not all the same, how many are actually asking for full
representation? I got the sense that NTT faculty aren’t that engaged, so my
question is do enough people want this change?
• A: The 88% runs the gamete, but UM is not represented at all in
that number. But we don’t know how the representation breaks
down across the 88%.
• F/U: We have good interest – anecdotally – despite the response
rate on the survey.
 Comment: In principle I don’t have a problem with NTT being
represented. But I had heard that at one point only 15-20 people were
showing up at meetings. I know that’s better now, but it is difficult to
make a change like this without having hard numbers from a larger
percentage NTT faculty.
• Response: That is a valid point, and the survey we are presenting
data from was long and it was distributed at the end of the
semester. I don’t know what the answer would be if we asked a
single question about willingness to participate on senate.
o F/U: I think that you need to show a larger response before
we can move forward with implementation of this
 Response: I bring this back to where we started with
the mission of the institution and we are currently
not meeting that creed because NTT faculty are not
being represented.
• F/U: I am saying that forcing this change on
a group of people that don’t really want this
to happen, will not work. Not that having
NTT representation is not a good idea.
 Comment: 6-7 years ago, the senate took up this question (addition: 2012)
and an AUUPE rep said that one body was best practices.
 Q: I polled everyone in my department and with the part-time inclusion
this proposal would be voted down 100%. I would like to know whether or
not part-time is part of the best practices?
• A: That’s not best practices right now, but it is a growing segment
of the population. But we included language in the document to
ensure that part time employees had an investment in the university
to allow them to participate.
 Q: What is the breakdown of who makes up the roughly 600 NTT faculty?
• A: We don’t have the numbers specifically, but we can look into
that more.
 Chair: Encourage senators to talk to NTT faculty to get a better sense of
their feelings
• Response: Could we get a set of questions to ask all NTT faculty?
o Recommendation to table this discussion and referring it to the executive meeting
• Committee Reports
o Academic Instructional Affairs
 No report
o Academic Conduct
 No report
o Finance & Benefits
 No report
o Development & Planning
 No report
o Governance
 No report
o Research & Creative Achievement
 No report
o University Services
 No report
• Old Business
• New Business
o New policy governing review of promotion documents of NTT faculty
 Was asked by Rich Forgette to speak about this change in policy and Brice
replied that we don’t represent NTT faculty.
 It has been approved – but it does effect TT faculty on the tenure and
promotion committee in that they just no longer see NTT faculty binders.
• Creates a separate committee of NTT faculty would be created to
review promotion documents
 Questions:
• Q: Typically for anything promotion wise there is a vote at the
department level, are they taken out of the loop?
o A: No, the department still votes, this new committee
reviews the documents to see if institutional policies have
been followed.
• Q: Why did they decide to do this?
o A: I think it is part because of the increased load on the T
and P committee.
o F/U: Four years ago, the task for faculty titles rights and
responsibilities wanted to find ways to more readily include
NTT faculty in shared governance. I felt there was
something strange about not including their peers in the
review of these documents.
• Q: To me this goes towards the national trend away from TT to
NTT faculty and does that set up the opportunity to get away from
tenure. So why do they need their own body to review the same
procedures that TT documents follow.
o A: It goes towards sharing the load and promoting shared
governance.
o F/U: The procedures were also quite different originally.
• Comment: If this was to do with tenure promotion decisions I
would be against. But it will ease the burden of the T and P
committee.
• Chair: I would also add that I don’t feel that this is taking anything
away from TT faculty in terms of deciding on promotion.
o Review of proposed new:
 Statement of Practice: Faculty Workload Flexibility and Modified Work
Assignments.
• The intention is to provide a statement of practice to make clear to
chairs and unit heads in the assignment of the workload that there
is the possibility of flexibility
o Ex. my former chair was under the impression that
everyone had to be treated the same regardless of grad
student load or research plans
• Questions:
o Q: But it seems like we are talking about two different
things – if someone wants to do fieldwork for a semester is
different from someone having a child? I would hate that
this becomes something that chairs point to say that the
university doesn’t need good maternity leave.
 A: The committee’s intention was that this would
empower faculty to have support
• F/U: My concern is that this could be
pointed to as an excuse for the university to
point to for not improving maternity leave
o F/U: One way to take this forward
would be to recommend that the
committee that developed this
document to continue its work and
develop a parental leave program.
o Q: Would this document empower an “evil” chair?
 A: The chairs already have this power
• F/U: You make a good point in that I think
that it empowers the chairs.
o Idea seconded
• Response: Since the chair already has the
power it isn’t empowering them, but just
making it more widely known
o Comment: Referring to Senate resolution March 2015 – re:
revision/clarification of leave policies. I just had my son
and had to negotiate with faculty members and my chair to
teach and do office hours online. But if I have to miss a
meeting on campus I have to take this out of my sick leave,
which disadvantages me in comparison to my male
colleagues.
• Response: There was an update at the
beginning of year that HR department will
develop a FAQ sheet. But that does not
address the other concerns about not having
an official leave policy. FLMA is the
minimum requirement, but the question of
whether we can do more has not be
answered.
o Q: The faculty excellence task force is a chancellor’s
standing committee?
 A: No. It was developed as part of the last strategic
plan.
o Comment: I do think this policy does raise the issue of
there possibility being too much flexibility in that if you
have a good department chair vs a not good department
chair.
 Response: The perspective of administration will
likely be that the more rigid the policy the less
flexibility
 F/U: Part of the problem is that HR is set up to deal
with staff issues, not faculty issues. I do think this is
something that needs to be addressed.
o Comment: My sense of this discussion is that we should
have is to continue to have conversations about protecting
faculty time.
o Comment: There may be value in re-stating the 2015
resolution
 Brice to follow-up
 Comment: That brings up another question about
the fact that we don’t have a good mechanism in
place to follow-up on resolutions.
• Response: I think that this body could chose
to be more proactive in follow-up of
resolutions.
o F/U: Maybe we should develop a
process for following up on
resolutions.
 Response: Perhaps it could be
the responsibilities of chairs.
o Comment: Any FMLA discussion needs to include sick
leave too.
 Policy: Counteroffers.
• The intention it to make clear that counter offers are possible
within the University.
o Basically, states that the chair and the dean can do
something if it is possible.
• Questions:
o Q: One of the things that the theatre arts department was
concerned about was a letter proving the offer, but not sure
to replace it with.
 Response: Often times it is not possible until a great
deal of time later (ex. from recently hired faculty
member from UM)
• Adjournment
o 8:45
Proposed Amendments to the Faculty Senate Constitution & Bylaws
Task Force for Non-Tenure Track Faculty & Shared Governance
Sarah Wilson (Chair), Anne Marie Liles, & Carrie V. Smith
Tuesday, January 23, 2018
Proposing a More Inclusive Faculty Senate
• The UM Mission Statement identifies a “mission to create, evaluate, share and apply knowledge in a
free, open and inclusive environment of intellectual inquiry.” As part of that mission, the university
identifies several core values, including promoting “inclusiveness in its student body, faculty, and
staff,” fostering “a civil community of shared governance,” and honoring “the dignity of all
employees.” However, our system of shared governance currently includes only tenure-line faculty
members. It specifically excludes all non-tenure track faculty, who make up approximately half of our
academic personnel.
• The Task Force for Non-Tenure Track Faculty and Shared Governance believes every faculty member
deserves a voice in shaping our university and seeks a role for non-tenure track faculty in our
university’s governance. We desire to strengthen the university as a whole by:
▫ Exploring how both tenure-line and non-tenure track faculty serve unique, connected, and essential roles on
the campus,
▫ Communicating our needs, aspirations, and talents more openly and effectively with tenure-line faculty and
administration, and
▫ Establishing effective pathways for voicing concerns and shaping policy.
• Our ultimate goal is to contribute to a stronger and more vibrant learning community through
inclusion, communication, and planning.
Task Force Mission Statement
Where We Currently Stand
From: Jones, W. A., Hutchens, N. H., Hulbert, A., Lewis, W. D., & Brown, D. M. (2017). Shared governance among the new majority: Non-tenure track
faculty eligibility for election to university faculty senates. Innovative Higher Education, 42, 1-15. 10.1007/s10755-017-9402-2. 2017
• Departmental Size
▫ Determined by the full-time equivalents (FTEs) of all faculty in each
department or unit
• Eligibility to Serve
▫ All faculty members who have been on faculty at the university and have
been benefits-eligible for the full prior academic year
▫ Some administrators still excluded
• Research Faculty
▫ Included here as single unit
Summary of Changes to Constitution & Bylaws
• Calculation: Standard, blended method across departments
▫ Instructional salary budgets to contract with faculty members
▫ Hiring outside individuals to teach courses on a temporary or one-off basis
• The industry definition of a 1.0 FTE teaching load is 12 credit hours per
semester.
▫ In most cases, this breaks down to 3 credit hours x 4 classes = 12 credits or
1.0 FTE
• FTEs measure the maximum teaching capacity of each department/unit.
▫ It is to be expected (and, in fact, preferred) that the actual teaching
workload assigned to the faculty will be less than the maximum capacity
FTEs: Some Details
Current vs Proposed Senate Numbers: 2017/18
• Contact: swilson3@olemiss.edu
• Task Force Website
▫ edblogs.olemiss.edu/nttfacultyandsharedgovernance
Conversation / Q&A

Shared Governance among the new Majority: Non-Tenure
Track Faculty Eligibility for Election to University
Faculty Senates
Willis A. Jones1 & Neal H. Hutchens2 & Azalea Hulbert3 &
Wayne D. Lewis 4 & David M. Brown5
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017
Abstract Non-tenure track faculty members (NTTF) constitute what has been referred to by
scholars as the new faculty majority. The growing numbers of NTTF have led to debates about
the role they should play in shared governance. Currently, however, an overall lack of
empirical knowledge exists regarding the status of their involvement in institutional
Innov High Educ
DOI 10.1007/s10755-017-9402-2
Willis A. Jones is Associate Professor of Higher Education at the University of Kentucky. He received a
Master’s degree from the University of Arkansas and a Ph.D. from Vanderbilt University. His particular interests
are intercollegiate athletics, diversity issues in higher education, and organizational behavior.
Neal Hutchens , Professor of Higher Education at the University of Mississippi, has research interests that center
on law and policy issues in higher education. He received a J.D. from the University of Alabama School of Law
and a Ph.D. from the University of Maryland.
Azalea Hulbert is a Ph.D candidate at Pennsylvania State University; and her research interests are leadership
and ethics, organizational behavior, and student development. She received an M.B.A from Samford University.
Wayne D. Lewis , Executive Director of Education Policy & Programs in the Kentucky Education and
Workforce Development Cabinet and Associate Professor of Educational Leadership at the University of
Kentucky, has research interests in educational leadership, policy, and politics. He received a Ph.D. from North
Carolina State University.
David M. Brown , Lecturer in the Department of Management at Ohio University, earned a Ph.D. in Higher
Education from the University of Kentucky. His research interests include historical and contemporary issues
affecting college students and the professoriate.
* Willis A. Jones
willis.a.jones@uky.edu
1 Educational Policy Studies and Evaluation, 131 Taylor Education Building, Lexington, KY 40506,
USA
2 Higher Education, University of Mississippi, Oxford, MS, USA
3 Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity Park, State College, PA 16802, USA
4 University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506, USA
5 Ohio University, Athens, OH 45701, USA
governance. Using data from highest research activity doctoral universities, this study investigated
current standards related to NTTF eligibility for election to institution-wide faculty
senates.We also explored what these faculty governance standards and criteria reveal about the
status and position of NTTF within the professoriate.
Keywords Shared governance . Non-tenure track faculty. Faculty senate
Non-tenure track faculty (NTTF) constitute the statistical majority among college faculty.
While tenured and tenure-line positions accounted for about 75% of faculty positions around
40 years ago, today nearly two-thirds of the faculty at United States public and private nonprofit
institutions of higher education are NTTF (Kezar & Sam, 2010c). Three of every four
new faculty hires are NTTF (Task Force on Non-Tenure-Track Faculty, 2013). The rise of
NTTF has led to several conversations within higher education, such as how to improve NTTF
work conditions (Kezar, 2012) and the impact of NTTF on student learning (Ehrenberg &
Zhang, 2005; Umbach, 2007). Our study focused on an issue increasingly subject to debate,
that is, the participation of NTTF in shared governance structures (Baldwin & Chronister,
2001; Kezar & Sam, 2010a, 2010b). In 2013 the American Association of University
Professors (AAUP) issued a report calling for the increased inclusion of NTTF at all levels
of institutional governance (American Association of University Professors, 2013). In 2016 the
Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges issued a report calling on
higher education institutions to do more to incorporate full-time NTTF and part-time faculty
members into shared governance (Association of Governing Boards of Universities and
Colleges, 2016).
Even as discourse intensifies over the participation of NTTF in governance, an overall lack
of empirical knowledge exists regarding the nature and status of their involvement in university
level governance. As noted in one news story on this issue, BNo one has good data on how
many faculty members working off the tenure track are included in faculty governance^
(Wilson, 2013, par. 9). Similarly, the American Association of University Professors (2013)
report pointed out that no clear picture exists of the nature of institutional policies related to the
shared governance rights of NTTF.
In an effort to increase knowledge of current practice, this descriptive study explored the
following questions.
& In what percentage of highest research activity doctoral universities are full-time nontenure
track faculty eligible for election to the faculty senate?
& In what percentage of highest research activity doctoral universities are part-time nontenure
track faculty eligible for election to the faculty senate?
& In what percentage of highest research activity doctoral universities are faculty senate seats
reserved specifically for non-tenure track faculty?
& Are university standards related to non-tenure track faculty eligibility for election to the faculty
senate correlated with institutional control, location, Association of American Universities
(AAU) status, or an institution’s overall percentage of non-tenure-track faculty employed?
We answered these questions using data from faculty senate bylaws, constitutions, and
faculty handbooks. Given the current lack of knowledge related to the inclusion of NTTF in
shared governance, this study starts to fill an important void in higher education governance
Innov High Educ
research. Our descriptive analysis also presents a platform for more critical analyses of what
faculty governance criteria reveal about the status of NTTF in the professoriate and the work
conditions experienced by NTTF.
For purposes of this study, we use faculty senate as a general term for institutional-level
governance bodies that serve as the representative organization for the faculty of an institution
of higher education. These bodies are commonly referred to as faculty senates, academic
senates, academic councils, faculty councils, or faculty committees.
NTTF in Higher Education
NTTF are typically defined as individuals hired by a college or university to teaching positions
that are not tenure eligible. NTTF consist of two major groups; part-time faculty and full-time
faculty. The majority of NTTF are part-time. Around 42% of all instructional staff positions in
institutions of higher education are filled by part-time NTTF (Curtis & Thornton, 2013). Parttime
NTTF are by far the fastest growing segment of the professoriate. From 1970 to 2001, the
number of part-time NTTF increased by 376% (Schuster & Finkelstein, 2006). Full-time
NTTF, who sometimes receive multi-year appointments with the expectation of renewal, have
increased at a slower rate. Around 15% of total instructional staff at all United States
institutions of higher education are full-time NTTF (Curtis & Thornton, 2013).
The American Education Research Association (AERA) report on NTTF published in 2013
highlighted several other distinguishing characteristics of NTTF (Task Force on Non-Tenure-Track
Faculty, 2013). While NTTF, especially part-time NTTF, are largely concentrated in community
colleges, growth trends can be seen across other higher education sectors as well. In particular, public
and private research universities have seen a sizable growth in full-time NTTF. NTTF are assigned a
number of different academic titles across institutions. One study found 50 titles and terms for parttime
faculty alone including adjunct, seasonal, visiting, and contingency faculty (Berry, 2005). The
AERA report also noted that NTTF are more likely to be employed in the academic fields of
education, fine arts, and business and that NTTF are disproportionally women.
Literature Review
Though the numbers of NTTF have grown over the years, limited empirical research has
addressed their involvement in institutional governance. The general consensus, however, is
that NTTF are not participating in shared governance in a meaningful or significant way
(American Association of University Professors, 2013; Morrison, 2008; Wilson, 2013).
Morrison (2008) posited five potential explanations for the lack of representation and participation
of NTTF in shared governance. NTTF either (a) do not wish to be involved in
governance as they are free-riders in a system designed by and reliant on the tenure-track
faculty, (b) do wish to be involved but are excluded from participation by the tenure-track
faculty, (c) do wish to be involved but are excluded by institutional policies, (d) do not believe
they have the time to be involved, or (e) avoid involvement due to concerns about their job
security and contingent employment status (Morrison, 2008, pp. 22–24).
Some of Morrison’s (2008) hypotheses related to the participation of NTTF in shared
governance have been studied. Kezar et al. (2006) examined the role of biases among tenuretrack
faculty as a reason for the exclusion of NTTF from participation in governance. Using
Innov High Educ
case study data from a college of education within a university, the researchers found that
tenure-track faculty members were concerned about the participation of NTTF in shared
governance because of the perceived inability of NTTF to be critical of administration due
to their lack of job security. Other tenure-track faculty members questioned whether NTTF
were really faculty or had a strong faculty identity given that they had not gone through the
rites of passage of earning tenure. Still others said that greater inclusion of NTTF in university
governance would legitimize the college’s decision to grow the ranks of NTTF, and they
Bresisted inclusion as capitulation, demanding that the institution make a greater investment in
tenure-track positions^ (Kezar et al., 2006, p. 126). For these reasons, tenure-track faculty
members within this college were reluctant to give NTTF a role in governance. Though the
Kezar et al. (2006) study was limited to only one institution, it demonstrates how bias and
stereotypes on the part of the tenure-track faculty can be a barrier to NTTF participation in
governance.
Other researchers have explored whether NTTF are interested in institutional governance.
Gappa and Leslie (1993) used interview data collected from over 450 NTTF, administrators,
and faculty leaders at 18 college and universities in the United States and Canada to explore
the status and work conditions of part-time NTTF. They found that for the most part, NTTF
want to be more actively involved in institutional governance. Baldwin and Chronister (2001)
used multiple sources of data including surveys, a review of institutional documents, and 12
campus visits to examine the work experiences of full-time NTTF. They found that, while the
actual involvement of NTTF in shared governance varied greatly among institutions, NTTF
consistently reported wanting to be more involved in governance. Some NTTF, however,
noted that the Bfreedom to be uninvolved^ represented a perk of NTTF status (p. 59). More
recent scholarship on the perceptions and desires of NTTF to participate in shared governance
has unfortunately not been conducted. The aforementioned studies suggest, however, that
many NTTF would indeed like to be involved in governance; and it is reasonable to assume
that this sentiment has remained unchanged in the intervening years..
Institutional policy as a barrier to NTTF involvement in governance has been a subject of
growing interest. Baldwin and Chronister (2001) reported that 49% of the 86 institutions of
higher education they surveyed provided eligibility for service in the faculty senate to full-time
NTTF. Only 46% of research universities allowed NTTF to serve on the faculty senate. Nearly
a decade later Kezar and Sam (2010a) studied 183 collective-bargaining agreements and found
that only 39% had any mention of NTTF participation in governance. The authors noted that
this low percentage, along with the sometimes inconsistent language used in the contracts,
suggested a need for union negotiators to address NTTF involvement in institutional governance.
In 2007 the Center for the Education of Women (CEW) surveyed university administrators
to ask about their perceptions of NTTF on their campus. The CEW report noted that
78% of survey respondents said full-time NTTF were entitled to participate in the faculty
senate. Part-time NTTF, according to survey respondents, were only eligible for senate
participation at 35% of institutions (Center for the Education of Women, 2007).
In 2011 the AAUP surveyed 800 faculty senate leaders in an effort to gain a greater
understanding of practices regarding the participation of NTTF in governance. Specifically, the
survey looked to explore NTTF Beligibility to serve, the existence of seats in institutional
governance bodies reserved for such faculty, policies to ensure academic freedom, compensation
for service, and recommendations about how to improve the current situation^
(American Association of University Professors, 2013, p. 2). The AAUP received responses
from just 125 of these senate leaders, most of whom were at either doctoral or comprehensive
Innov High Educ
institutions. Three-quarters of these survey respondents indicated that full-time NTTF are
eligible to serve in governance roles at their institution. Only about 25% of survey respondents
indicated that part-time NTTF were eligible for faculty governance roles. The eligibility of
NTTF to serve in institutional governance, however, was often limited. Among respondents
who indicated that their institution allowed some NTTF involvement in governance, 43%
limited the number of NTTF allowed to serve; and 38% reported that NTTF must have
minimum teaching loads or a certain type of appointment. The survey also found that at most
schools NTTF are not compensated for their service and that most schools do not consider the
governance service of NTTF in personnel evaluations (American Association of University
Professors, 2013).
To summarize, limited research exists regarding NTTF participation in institutional governance.
This is especially true as it relates to institutional policies. We found only three studies
which investigated institutional policy as it relates to NTTF involvement in governance. One
(Kezar & Sam, 2010a) focused on faculty collective bargaining contracts while the other two
(American Association of University Professors, 2013; Center for the Education of Women,
2007) surveyed faculty senate leaders or institutional administrators. Our analysis adds to this
literature by examining the language within faculty senate written policy as it relates to NTTF
and institutional governance. Our study provides an important complement to the work of the
American Association of University Professors (2013) because of questions regarding the
extent to which faculty leaders actually know the governance policies at their own institution.
The American Association of University Professors (2013) report noted that one of the most
frustrating aspects of their survey was Bthe high number of Bnot sure^ responses from senate
leaders to questions about policies at their own institutions^ (p. 2).
Conceptual Framework
The primary goal of our study was to describe the characteristics of instructional policies
related to NTTF eligibility for election to the faculty senate. As noted earlier, there is currently
a lack of knowledge regarding NTTF participation in institutional governance. This lack of
knowledge means the higher education community cannot fully assess the role of the new
faculty majority in institutional governance. We also lack information on if, how, and for
whom the current state of NTTF governance policy needs to change or be improved.
Therefore, it is important to increase our knowledge of institutional practices regarding NTTF
involvement in shared governance.
The importance of our study was also grounded in two ideas regarding what faculty
governance standards and criteria reveal about the status and position of NTTF in the
professoriate. In a qualitative study of NTTF experiences within academic departments,
Kezar (2013) discovered evidence of four different types of cultures as perceived by NTTF:
destructive, neutral, inclusive, and learning. NTTF involvement in governance is an important
characteristic of each of these cultures. In destructive cultures NTTF are shut out of
governance. In neutral cultures NTTF are often not invited to participate in governance. In
inclusive and learning cultures NTTF are included and encouraged to participation in
institutional governance. These cultures have been shown to affect NTTF job performance.
Bland, Center, Finstad, Risbey, and Staples (2006) and Kezar (2013) noted that work conditions
and culture correlate with NTTF ability and willingness to perform their jobs in ways that
enhance student learning. We use Kezar’s categories of college and university cultures to help
Innov High Educ
frame this study. In particular, we frame our work as a study of an institutional practice that can
serve as an important indicator of the culture experienced by NTTF.
Our study was also broadly situated within the conceptual terrain of faculty identity, status,
and socialization (Kuntz, 2012; Reybold, 2003; Tierney & Bensimon, 1996; Tierney &
Rhoads, 1994), specifically in relation to what it means to belong to or to be accepted as a
member of the professoriate. Birnbaum (1989) noted that faculty senates carry out a number of
latent and manifest functions within institutions of higher education. We argue that one of
those functions might be the legitimation and definition of the Bthe faculty.^ While we often
speak of Bthe faculty^ in higher education as a shorthand reference to tenure-line faculty, the
reality at many colleges and universities is that teaching and other traditional functions of
professors are increasingly being carried out by NTTF. Accordingly, a basic question has
arisen on many campuses involving which individuals actually constitute Bthe faculty.^ The
increased reliance on NTTF has raised important questions regarding how to define and to
conceptualize what it means to be a member of the professoriate.
Faculty senate policies could provide some insight into how institutions of higher education
define Bthe faculty.^ As part of their latent function, Birnbaum (1989) noted that faculty
senates can provide status and recognition to individual members of the faculty. We believe
faculty senates can also provide status and recognition for members of the faculty. Therefore, a
descriptive analysis of faculty senate constitutions and bylaws provides one window for better
understanding how institutions of higher education define and characterize exactly what it
means to be a part of Bthe faculty.^
The Study and Methods
Institutions
For our study we used descriptive statistics to catalogue institutional policies related to NTTF
eligibility for election to the faculty senate. We restricted our analysis to highest research
doctoral universities according to the 2016 Carnegie Classification. The Carnegie Classification
defines doctoral universities as institutions which awarded at least 20 research/scholarship
doctorates in 2013–2014 excluding professional practice doctoral degrees. Institutions were
classified as highest research activity universities based on their level of research and development
expenditures, research staff, and doctoral conferrals. A total of 115 institutions are
designated by Carnegie as highest research doctoral universities.
We made the decision to focus on this category of institution for several reasons. Given the
descriptive and exploratory nature of this study, we believed it would be useful to analyze the
subset of institutions with the highest profile in the higher education sector. By most popular
matrices (e.g., magazine rankings, membership in the American Association of Universities),
the most prestigious universities in the United States are found within this category. Given the
isomorphic nature of post-secondary education (Jencks & Riesman, 1968; Powell &
DiMaggio, 1991), it is possible that the policies of this subgroup of institutions are somewhat
representative of policies at other types institutions of higher education.We also chose to focus
on to highest research doctoral universities because we found that faculty senate bylaws and
constitutions from university webpages were readily available. In our preliminary attempt to
explore NTTF involvement in shared governance at other doctoral level institutions, master’s
colleges/universities, and baccalaureate colleges, we had found that many institutions within
Innov High Educ
these classifications did not publish faculty senate information on their institutional website,
making the acquisition of data difficult.
Data Collection and Analysis
To obtain data for our study, we visited the websites of all 115 highest research doctoral
universities in fall 2016. We searched for documents providing the policies and election
procedures of the faculty senate, typically the faculty senate constitution and bylaws or the
faculty handbook. We examined each policy and created three dummy variables based on the
NTTF election eligibility criteria and faculty senate composition. First we determined if fulltime
NTTF were eligible for election to the faculty senate. We defined full-time appointments
as faculty with a .5 or higher full-time equivalent (FTE) at an institution. This definition of a
full-time appointment is informed by the observations of Rhoades and Maitland (2008), who
stated that Bbenefits are usually based on FTE, so that faculty members with .5 FTE or greater
appointments often receive full or prorated benefits^ (p. 72). Second, we determined if parttime
NTTF were eligible for election to the faculty senate and again created a dummy variable
to designate an institution’s policy. Our third dummy variable was created based on whether
the senate reserved seats specifically for NTTF. We chose the full-time versus part-time
dimension as a focus of our analysis based on the importance of contract status on the
experiences and expectations of NTTF. Kezar (2013) noted,
We also know that contract type shapes NTTF experience and faculty that teach a course
who are retired from a professional position (part-time or adjunct) have different
experiences and expectations than faculty who are conducting non-tenure-track work
as their full-time position and/or are working full-time. (p. 161)
Each member of the research team individually coded a different subset of highest research
doctoral universities. In instances where a team member was unsure of how a school should be
coded, other members of the research team were consulted. In instances where multiple
members of the team could not determine how an institution should be coded, emails were
sent to the institution’s faculty senate president or administrative assistant requesting clarification
of the policy.
To address our first three research questions, we used percentage distributions for each of
the dummy variables among highest research doctoral universities. To address our fourth
research question, we engaged in bivariate analysis to examine whether faculty senate policies
regarding NTTF were statistically related to four institutional characteristics. The first was
whether an institution was privately or publicly controlled. Given the governance and organizational
differences between public and private universities, we hypothesized that there would
be significant differences in the frequencies of institutional policies based on the control of the
institution. The second institutional characteristic examined was location as determined by a
school’s Office of Business Economic region code. Given differences in collective bargaining
or right to work laws in various regions of the country as well as differences in cultural work
norms by region, we anticipated that policies would differ across regions. The third institutional
characteristic was whether an institution was a member of the Association of American
Universities (AAU). AAU institutions are often perceived to be among the top tier of research
universities in the United States, so the goal was to compare policies at the most elite doctoral
institutions with policies at other doctoral institutions. The final institutional characteristic
examined was the overall percentage of full-time instructional staff employed as NTTF at an
Innov High Educ
institution. We hypothesized that schools with a higher percentage of NTTF would be more
likely to include NTTF in shared governance.We obtained data on institutional control and the
percentage of instructional staff in NTTF positions from the Integrated Postsecondary Education
Data System (IPEDS) 2014–2015 academic year database. AAU membership information
was obtained from the AAU webpage.
Limitations
The findings of this study should be interpreted with some important limitations in mind. First,
we restricted our sample to only those schools classified as highest research doctoral universities.
While we believe our findings have strong validity among this subset of higher
education institutions, they provide little insight into NTTF governance policies at community
colleges, for-profit institutions, master’s colleges/universities, baccalaureate colleges, or other
categories of doctoral universities.
A second limitation of this study was the exclusive use of online documents for data
collection. It is possible that changes in faculty senate bylaws had occurred recently but that
these documents had not yet been updated on institutional websites. Based on other information
on faculty senate webpages (such as senate rosters), however, institutions for the most part
appeared to keep their faculty senate sites updated.
We also acknowledge the potential existence of measurement error in our cataloging of
institutional policies. The data sources used in this study (faculty senate constitutions, bylaws,
and handbooks) were not designed to answer the specific research questions in this study.
Therefore, the team was forced to interpret institutional policies for coding purposes. This
could lead to a degree of measurement error where an institution’s policy was classified in a
way that differs from its true value. Given the relative simplicity of the classification
categories used in this study, however, we do not believe that this measurement error is
significant.
Findings
Of the 115 highest research doctoral universities, seven (Brown University, Tufts University,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Johns Hopkins University, Yale University, Harvard
University, and Boston College) were dropped from analyses because they have no formal,
institution-wide faculty senate. Two other institutions (California Institute of Technology and
Carnegie Mellon University) did notmake faculty senate rules and policies available online. After
multiple attempts to obtain data from these institutions were unsuccessful, we dropped these
institutions from our analysis. Thus, the final analytic sample for this study was 106 universities.
Table 1 presents the study findings. Our first research question asked in what percentage of
highest research doctoral universities are full-time non-tenure track faculty eligible for election
to the faculty senate. Similar to the American Association of University Professors (2013)
report, we found that the vast majority, 85%, of institutions extended faculty senate election
eligibility to full-time NTTF. The remaining 15% of institutions restricted senate eligibility to
tenure-track faculty only.
In many instances, the policy language used in the faculty senate bylaws discussed the role
of full-time NTTF in shared governance as it related to their larger inclusion in the university
faculty. For Indiana University, one reads that Bacademic appointees who are not tenure-track
Innov High Educ
(i.e., clinical ranks; research scientist/scholar ranks; lecturer ranks) on the Bloomington
campus shall be considered faculty.^ Georgia Tech guidelines state that,
University faculty membership consists of full-time professors, associate professors,
assistant professors, principal senior lecturers, senior lecturers, lecturers, clinical professors,
clinical associate professors, clinical assistant professors, clinical instructors, research
professors, research associate professors, research assistant professors, professors
of practice, academic professionals, and instructors, who do not hold temporary, limitedterm,
part-time, or visiting appointments.
In both instances, it is later noted that all members of the recognized university faculty are
eligible for election to the senate.
While most institutions extended senate election eligibility to full-time NTTF, part-time
NTTF were largely excluded. Our second research question asked in what percentage of
highest research doctoral universities are part-time NTTF eligible for election to faculty senate.
We found that only 11% of our sample institutions extended eligibility rights to part-time
NTTF. This percentage was lower than that reported by the American Association of University
Professors (2013), which found that about 25% of their sample allowed part-time faculty
eligibility to serve in governance roles.
Syracuse University and the University of Tennessee-Knoxville provide two examples of
policy language used at schools which allow part-time NTTF to stand for election to the
senate. The standards at Syracuse read as follows.
The following shall be eligible to stand for election as additional members: full-time
faculty who are professors of all ranks, instructors or lecturers, regular part-time faculty,
currently enrolled and matriculated graduate and undergraduate students, full-time nonfaculty
professional staff, full-time and regular part-time secretarial, clerical and technical
staff and unionized staff.
At Tennessee, senators are elected from among individuals Bmeeting the following criteria
at the time of the election: the holding of full-time or continuing part-time appointment with
the rank, or equivalent rank, of lecturer, clinical instructor, assistant professor or higher.^
Our third research question asked what percentage of highest research doctoral universities
reserve seats on the faculty senate specifically for non-tenure track faculty. The American
Association of University Professors (2013) survey found that 63.7% of institutions did not
Table 1 Faculty senate eligibility standards for NTTF
Only TT
faculty eligible
for senate
Full-time
NTTF eligible
for senate
Part-time
NTTF eligible
for senate
Seats reserved
on the senate
for NTTF
All doctoral institutions-highest
research activity (n = 106)
15% 85% 11% 10%
Public Institutions (n = 81) 12% 88% 12% 8%
Private Institutions (n-25) 24% 76% 8% 12%
Northeast (n = 24) 21% 79% 17% 17%
Midwest (n = 23) 17% 83% 4% 9%
South (n = 41) 12% 88% 12% 7%
West (n = 18) 11% 89% 11% 5%
Non-AAU (n = 53) 15% 85% 13% 6%
AAU (n = 53) 15% 85% 9% 13%
Innov High Educ
reserve seats in governance bodies for NTTF. Within our sample, 91% of institutions reserved
no seats on the faculty senate for NTTF. Among the 10 universities which did so the number of
seats was often relatively small. At Rice University, for example, the faculty senate consists of
34 members. Four of those senate seats are reserved for NTTF with a variety of appointment
titles (ranging from lecturer to post-doctoral appointees and research appointments). At the
University of North Texas, four of the 45 faculty senate seats are reserved for faculty at the
rank of instructor or lecturer.
To summarize, our descriptive analysis of NTTF eligibility for election to the faculty senate
found that the majority of institutions provided some avenue for NTTF participation in shared
governance via eligibility for faculty senate membership. Only 15% of the institutions we
examined restricted eligibility to only tenure track faculty. Among the institutions that allow
NTTF to serve on the faculty senate, it was often restricted to full-time NTTF. Of the 90
institutions which offered senate membership eligibility to NTTF, 86% restricted eligibility to
only full-time NTTF. Part-time NTTF were largely excluded from governance participation.
We also found that very few highest research doctoral universities reserved seats on the faculty
senate specifically for NTTF.
Our fourth research question asked whether university standards related to NTTF eligibility
for election to the faculty senate correlated with institutional control, location, AAU status, or
an institution’s overall percentage of non-tenure-track faculty employed. We addressed this
question using bivariate statistical analyses. We first focused on how institutional status (i.e.,
public or private) correlated with the likelihood of an institution allowing NTTF senate
eligibility. A chi-squared test showed no statistically significant correlation between being a
public/private institution and full-time NTTF senate eligibility X2 (1, 106) = 2.02, p = .16.We
also found no statistically significant correlation between public/private status and part-time
faculty eligibility, X2 (1, 106) = .35, p = .55, or whether an institution reserves senate seats for
NTTF, X2 (1, 106) = .25, p = .62.
Our second institutional characteristic was location. The Office of Business Economic region
code groups universities into one of nine regional areas. For our analysis, due to our limited sample
size, we converted these regional areas into four groups. Schools located in New England and the
Mideast were classified as Northeast. Schools located in the Great Lakes and Plains were classified
as Midwest. Schools located in the Southeast and Southwest were classified as South while schools
in the Rocky Mountains and Far West were classified as West. Chi-square analysis showed no
statistically significant correlation between location and full-time NTTF senate eligibility X2 (3,
106) = 1.20, p = .75, part-time NTTF senate eligibility X2 (3, 106) = 1.82, p = .61, or seats reserved
on the faculty senate for NTTF X2 (3, 106) = 2.01, p = .57. Chi squared analyses exploring the
relationship between AAU status and eligibility returned similar non-significant findings to those
noted above. Being a part of the AAU did not correlate with full-time NTTF senate eligibility X2 (1,
106) = 0, p = 1, part-time NTTF senate eligibility X2 (1, 106) = .375, p = .54, or seats reserved on the
faculty senate for NTTF X2 (1, 106) = 1.76, p = .18.
The final institutional characteristic of interest was the overall percentage of NTTF
employed at an institution. NTTF percentage was calculated by dividing the total number of
teaching personnel in non-tenure earning positions by the number of full-time instructional
staff at a university during the 2014–2015 academic year. The mean NTTF percentage among
the 106 institutions in our dataset was 31.5% with a standard deviation of 13%. NTTF
percentage was then included in a simple logit regression model predicting NTTF senate
eligibility. As with the other independent variables in this study, we found that the NTTF
percentage had no statistically significant relationship with full-time NTTF senate eligibility
Innov High Educ
(β = −1.71, p = .40), part-time NTTF senate eligibility (β = −.38, p = .87), or seats reserved on
the faculty senate for (β =3.21, p = .19).
In summary, our findings for research question four suggest no clear patterns. Neither
institutional control, location, AAU status, nor the percentage of NTTF at an institution was a
significant predictor of eligibility standards for either full-time or part-time NTTF.
Discussion
NTTF have become the new statistical majority among the professoriate. These faculty
members have valuable expertise, teach, and advise a large number of students; and they
contribute to the social/academic context of a college or university (Figlio, Schapiro, & Soter,
2005; Kezar et al., 2006). As noted by one administrator BOur best new faculty are non-tenure
track faculty. They are dynamic and committed, interested in professional development and
institutional success^ (Center for the Education of Women, 2007, p. 3). Despite their prevalence
and importance within higher education, we still lack a clear understanding of the role
NTTF play in college and university decision making. The goal of this study was to examine
policy regulations regarding NTTF eligibility to participate in faculty governance, in the
context of highest research doctoral universities. While our research was largely descriptive,
several important findings come out of this study. One finding was an appreciation of the wide
range of policies regarding NTTF involvement in institutional-level shared governance. In
addition to finding a variety of polices, we encountered seemingly ambiguous rules in several
institutional policies. We suggest that this variation and ambiguity in eligibility rules reflects a
larger state of affairs in higher education in relation to NTTF, with varying titles, standards, and
practices existing across and even within institutions. We believe our findings reinforce
previous research, which has found broad disagreement and uncertainty regarding the status
of NTTF in higher education (Cross & Goldenberg, 2009; Hutchens, 2011; Kezar, 2012).
The ambiguity of faculty senate rules meant that our determinations of NTTF eligibility for
faculty senate membership proved surprisingly difficult for some universities even after
consultation with faculty senate constitutions, bylaws, and faculty handbooks. The uncertainty
that we encountered in discerning membership eligibility prompted several questions. We
wondered whether such ambiguity arose unintentionally through a lack of institutional focus
on issues pertinent to NTTF or whether some universities are perhaps reluctant to acknowledge
explicitly in senate constitutions and bylaws the exclusion of certain NTTF from senate
membership eligibility. No matter the institutional stance, we believe that transparency and
unambiguousness on the issue are warranted in the name of basic openness in shared
governance matters (American Association of University Professors, 2013). Given the interpretational
challenges encountered in this study with multiple institutions, our findings suggest
that a significant number of institutions would be well advised to review faculty senate
membership criteria so as to assess their clarity and transparency for members of the campus
community.
Policy differences by contract status constituted a finding that especially stood out in this
study. Full-time NTTF were eligible for election to the faculty senate at most highest research
doctoral universities. This finding was similar to the results from the American Association of
University Professors (2013) study on NTTF involvement in shared governance. Our findings
suggest that over the last 15 years more research universities are making NTTF eligible for
election to the faculty senate. Only 48% of the research universities surveyed by Baldwin and
Innov High Educ
Chronister in 2001 offered election elegability to full-time NTTF. Our study using data from
2016 found that 85% of highest research activity univerisites offer election elegability to fulltime
NTTF. While these two studies cannot be directly compared, they do suggest a shift in
university policy to be more inclusive of full-time NTTF.
Considering these findings relative to frameworks of institutional culture and faculty status
discussed earlier, our study may be viewed as an indicator that full-time NTTF are, at least to
some extent, experiencing inclusive and learning cultures at highest research doctoral universities.
These findings also serve as an indicator that full-time NTTF are increasingly being
accepted as legitimate members of the professoriate within these institutions.
In contrast to our findings regarding full-time NTTF, we found that part-time NTTF were
for the most part excluded from senate eligibility at most institutions. This finding contrasts
sharply with the recommendations for involving all NTTF, including part-time personnel, in
governance. The American Association of University Professors (2013) contends that Bfaculty
members who hold contingent appointments should be afforded responsibilities and opportunities
in governance similar to those of their tenured and tenure-track colleagues,^ with parttime
faculty specifically included in this call for inclusion (p. 5). We found, however, that
nearly 90% of highest research doctoral universities excluded part-time NTTF from faculty
senate eligibility.
This exclusion from membership as full members of the faculty may be indicative of larger
institutional cultures and norms. The part-time NTTF senate eligibility policies in our study
may suggest destructive or neutral institutional cultures where NTTF are excluded from
institutional governance. Given that involvement in governance is only one element of
institutional culture as conceptualized by Kezar (2013), however, we do not know if parttime
NTTF at our sample institutions are fully experiencing destructive or neutral cultures. We
do believe, however, that our study provides further evidence that many research universities
are cultivating institutional cultures which fail to support part-time NTTF, which may significantly
impact the willingness, capacity, and opportunity of part-time NTTF to perform their
roles as teachers and department colleagues. To provide students with the highest quality
educational experience, we believe that higher education institutions must create affirming
work conditions for all faculty regardless of contract status.
While our study focused on faculty senate membership standards, we do not suggest that
eligibility represents a special panacea in terms of issues related to NTTF, nor does eligibility
automatically equate to election. Faculty senate composition comprises only one dimension
related to the treatment of NTTF. As prior research has demonstrated, multiple factors,
especially those at the college or department level, affect the professional experiences of
NTTF (Kezar & Sam, 2010c). Thus, faculty senate eligibility should be considered alongside
other institutional factors affecting NTTF. At the same time, eligibility standards provide a
formal institutional determination of which individuals comprise the faculty, with potential
pragmatic implications alongside more symbolic ones.
A range of forces impact the experiences of NTTF and influence factors to be considered
when designing institutional policies and procedures affecting these faculty members. As such,
we suggest assessment of faculty senate eligibility standards should ideally occur from a
holistic perspective, ostensibly as part of a larger institutional review of standards and practices
related to NTTF. In an example that received national press attention, The University of
Denver undertook an institution-wide review of its titling and appointment standards for NTTF
(Flaherty, 2015). The review included issues related to shared governance and resulted in the
creation of a revised appointment and promotion structure for faculty members in non-tenure
Innov High Educ
line positions. Rather than an isolated matter, faculty senate eligibility interconnects with
multiple issues affecting NTTF.
In relation to shared governance and faculty senate eligibility, a key area of concern
involves the level of professional independence and autonomy possessed by NTTF. These
faculty members, even if in full-time positions, are subject to varying appointment types, with
some full-time NTTF employed on yearly contracts, while others are on multi-year appointments,
which can also be on a rolling basis that provides an additional layer of economic
security (Hutchens, 2011). Additionally, mechanisms of re-appointment differ, such as through
a committee process or left primarily to a single administrator. Questions related to professional
independence are likely even more pronounced for NTTF faculty with part-time
appointments.
That a faculty member should possess the requisite professional autonomy to participate in
shared governance in an independent manner represents a reasonable senate membership prerequisite.
In revising its overall policies for NTTF, for example, the University of Denver also
amended policy language dealing with issues of faculty autonomy and independence in shared
governance matters, in addition to issues involving academic freedom (Flaherty, 2015). A
decision at New York University to exclude NTTF from college-level shared governance
structures rested in part on concerns over their lack of sufficient professional independence
(Wilson, 2013). While pre-tenure faculty could be characterized as subject to similar forces,
these forces are limited to the probationary period. Additionally, annual evaluation systems
and reliance on the peer review process in tenure decisions arguably provide a level of
protection unavailable to many NTTF. Thus, we recommend that a review of faculty senate
eligibility standards should not occur in isolation from how other campus policies and
procedures affect the professional independence of NTTF.
A minority of institutions in our sample (10%) reserved a seat or seats for NTTF on the faculty
senate. The American Association of University Professors (2013) noted that reserving seats for
NTTF on a faculty senate may be appropriate to ensure representation, but general voting and
service eligibility should be the institutional goal. Designating seats may help to create campus
norms regarding participation byNTTF in governance (Kezar&Sam, 2014).At the same time, such
seats serving only as tokens will likely do little to help promote a campus environment truly
conducive to meaningful participation by NTTF in shared governance. Kezar and Sam (2014),
looking to Birnbaum (1991), discussed how shared governance can play an important role in
institutional well-being. The authors suggested that Binvolving NTTFs in governance can provide a
vehicle for relationship building^ and a means to build trust and understanding that can help lead to
institutional policy changes (Kezar & Sam, 2014, p. 430).
The findings of this study raise multiple questions for additional inquiry. Does ambiguity in
language describing eligibility standards reflect tension in or inattention to the role of NTTF in
governance? Given the small number of institutions in our sample extending some type of
senate eligibility to part-time NTTF, what were the institutional dynamics at play on these
campuses? Has senate eligibility resulted in meaningful benefits for NTTF in relation to their
treatment and status within the institution? Are the policies found at highest research doctoral
universities similar to those at other types of college and universities? How do cultural
environments influence policy decisions regarding the inclusion or exclusion of NTTF in
shared governance? A more interpretive qualitative look at faculty senate bylaws would be
valuable as well. What does the language/discourse used in shared governance documents
convey about the position of NTTF within the academy?We believe the descriptive analysis in
our study can serve as a starting point for addressing each of these questions. Rather than an
Innov High Educ
end point, our findings suggest the need for scholarship that continues to examine the issues
relevant to NTTF.
Conclusion
Our descriptive snapshot of highest research doctoral universities policies related to
NTTF eligibility for election to the faculty senate has four main conclusions. First, fulltime
NTTF at most institutions are eligible for election to the faculty senate. Second,
part-time NTTF at most institutions are ineligible for election to the faculty. Third, only
a few institutions reserve special seats on the faculty senate for NTTF. Fourth, there are
no statistically significant differences in NTTF eligibility for election policies based on
institution control, location, AAU status, or the percentage of NTTF at an institution.
We encourage institutions to examine where they stand in these areas and to determine
if faculty senate policies are in line with the goals and values of the institution. Over
the next several years, colleges and universities must consider how shared governance
policies represent the interests and concerns of full- and part-time NTTF, both for
reasons of equity and social justice and to elicit the views and opinions of a faculty
constituency which has become the new faculty majority.
References
American Association of University Professors (2013). The inclusion in governance of faculty members holding
contingent appointments. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.aaup.org/report/governanceinclusion
Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (2016). Shared governance: Is ok good enough?
Retrieved from https://www.agb.org/reports/2016/shared-governance-is-ok-good-enough
Baldwin, R. G., & Chronister, J. L. (2001). Teaching without tenure: Policies and practices for a new era.
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Berry, J. (2005). Reclaiming the ivory tower: Organizing adjuncts to change higher education. New York, NY:
Monthly Review Press.
Birnbaum, R. (1989). The latent organizational functions of the academic senate: Why senates do not work but
will not go away. The Journal of Higher Education, 60, 423–443. doi:10.2307/1982064. Retrieved
from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.uky.edu/stable/1982064
Birnbaum, R. (1991). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and leadership. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bland, C. J., Center, B. A., Finstad, D. A., Risbey, K. R., & Staples, J. (2006). The impact of appointment type on
the productivity and commitment of full-time faculty in research and doctoral institutions. The Journal of
Higher Education, 77, 89–123. doi:10.1353/jhe.2006.0002
Center for the Education ofWomen (2007). Making the best of both worlds: Findings from a national institutionlevel
survey on non-tenure track faculty. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for the Education of Women. Retrieved
from http://www.cew.umich.edu/research/pubs/hepubs/contingent
Cross, J. G., & Goldenberg, E. N. (2009). Off-track profs: Nontenured teachers in higher education. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Curtis, J. W., & Thornton, S. (2013). The annual report on the economic status of the profession, 2012–
2013. Washington, DC: American Association of University Professors. Retrieved from http://www.aaup.
org/report/heres-news-annual-report-economic-status-profession-2012-13
Ehrenberg, R. G., & Zhang, L. (2005). Do tenured and tenure-track faculty matter? Journal of Human Resources
40, 647–659. doi:10.3368/jhr.XL.3.647
Figlio, D. N., Schapiro, M. O., & Soter, K. B. (2015). Are tenure track professors better teachers? Review of
Economics and Statistics, 97, 715–724. doi:10.1162/REST_a_00529
Innov High Educ
Flaherty, C. (2015, Febuary 17). More than adjuncts. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.
insidehighered.com/news/2015/02/17/new-faculty-model-u-denver-could-be-prototype-reform
Gappa, J. M., & Leslie, D. W. (1993). The invisible faculty: Improving the status of part-timers in higher
education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hutchens, N. H. (2011). Using a legal lens to better understand and frame issues shaping the employment
environment of non-tenure track faculty members. American Behavioral Scientist, 1443–1460. doi:10.1177
/0002764211409192
Jencks, C., & Riesman, D. (1968). The academic revolution. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Kezar, A. (2013). Departmental cultures and non-tenure-track faculty: Willingness, capacity, and opportunity to
perform at four-year institutions. The Journal of Higher Education, 84, 153–188. doi:10.1353/jhe.2013.0011
Kezar, A. (Ed.). (2012). Embracing non-tenure track faculty: Changing campuses for the new faculty majority.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Kezar, A., Lester, J., & Anderson, G. (2006). Challenging stereotypes that interfere with effective governance.
Thought and Action, Fall, 2016, 121–134. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/home/1821.htm
Kezar, A., & Sam, C. (2010a). Beyond contracts: Non-tenure track faculty and campus governance. The NEA
Almanac of Higher Education. Washington, DC: National Education Association.
Kezar, A., & Sam, C. (2010b). Non-tenure-track faculty in higher education: Theories and tensions. Hoboken,
NJ: Jossey-Bass.
Kezar, A., & Sam, C. (2010c). Understanding the new majority of non-tenure-track faculty in higher education:
Demographics, experiences, and plans of action. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kezar, A., & Sam, C. (2014). Governance as a catalyst for policy change creating a contingent faculty friendly
academy. Educational Policy, 28, 425–462. doi:10.1177/0895904812465112
Kuntz, A. M. (2012). Reconsidering the workplace: Faculty perceptions of their work and working environments.
Studies in Higher Education, 37, 769–782. doi:10.1080/03075079.2010.541556
Morrison, J. D. (2008). Faculty governance and nontenure-track appointments. New Directions for Higher
Education, 143, 21–27. doi:10.1002/he.309
Powell, W., & DiMaggio, P. (Eds.). (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Reybold, L. E. (2003). Pathways to the professorate: The development of faculty identity in education. Innovative
Higher Education, 235–252. doi:10.1023/A:1024024430041
Rhoades, G., & Maitland, C. (2008). Bargaining for full-time, non-tenure track faculty: Best practices.
Washington, DC: National Educaton Association.
Schuster, J. H., & Finkelstein, M. J. (2006). The American faculty: The restructuring of academic work and
careers. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
Task Force on Non-Tenure-Track Faculty (2013). Non-tenure-track faculty in U.S. Universities: AERA statement
and background report. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.aera.net/Portals/38/docs/Education_
Research_and_Research_Policy/NonTenTrackFaculty_R4.pdf
Tierney, W. G., & Bensimon, E. M. (1996). Promotion and tenure: Community and socialization in academe.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Tierney, W. G., & Rhoads, R. A. (1994). Faculty socialization as cultural process: A mirror of institutional
commitment. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Umbach, P. D. (2007). How effective are they? Exploring the impact of contingent faculty on undergraduate
education. The Review of Higher Education, 30, 91–123. doi:10.1353/rhe.2006.0080
Wilson, R. (2013, March 18). The new faculty minority. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved
from http://chronicle.com/article/The-New-Faculty-Minority/137945/
Innov High Educ