This study examines perceptions of 12 full-time non-tenure track faculty members about their professional and academic selves in a research-intensive university. A phenomenological approach is used to gain insight into the complexities of the experience of being a full-time faculty member, off the tenure-track, whose primary responsibility is teaching within a research-intensive institution. The notion of tenurestream as the only desired path to being an academic is challenged by these faculty members’ understanding of their identities. This researcher considers how professional identities may be understood and suggests that the meanings and values these faculty members attach to their professional roles may be embedded in their perceptions of how their role fits within the department. Throughout this qualitative inquiry, the perspectives of these faculty members are positioned as a primary source of data about the experience of being a full-time non-tenure track faculty member. By using a phenomenological approach and taking a constructivist perspective this researcher finds that extant theories that view this population through a deficit model are inaccurate. Additionally, essentialist and homogenizing descriptions of this population are also found to be insufficient. A qualitative analysis suggests the viability of an alternative description of this population, one which reflects the nuanced view of professional identity these participants expressed. Based on structural categories adapted from Martin’s (2002) three perspective view of organizational culture, their perceptions are categorized according to the congruence expressed between their social identity and their professional role. Perceptions shared about their departmental culture are similarly categorized which provides insight about the influence of policies, practices, and collegial interactions on professional lives.

This qualitative, phenomenological study explores the lived experiences of tenure-track faculty serving in dual roles as administrators at Carnegie classified R2 and R3 higher education institutions within the United States. Fourteen participants completed one-on-one, semi-structured interviews about their lived experiences as tenure-track faculty members serving in dual roles. Participants discussed rewards and motivations as well as challenges. Additionally, participants discussed perceptions of their academic identities. Key themes emerged during data analysis. Rewards and motivations included the following: Community change agent and student advocate, a “seat at the table,” collegiality, flexibility, confidence from prior experience and clear tenure procedures, and job security and potential for career advancement. Challenges included workload and time management, research, operational confusion, politics including power dynamics and bureaucratic or hierarchical obstacles, changing conditions in higher education, professional invisibility, untenured stress and anxiety, and personal obstacles such as family and health issues. Themes related to academic identities included self-identity in relation to audience, perceptions from others based on interaction, and metaphors of identity. The findings from this study led to recommendations for best practice concerning tenure processes and policies as well as recommendations for dual role processes and policies. The findings from this study also revealed a need for more research concerning dual roles to aid in the creation of more equitable policy and practice for faculty serving in dual roles both pre- and post-tenure.

The rapid increase in the number of non-tenure-track faculty members (Curtis, 2014), has prompted research about this group (Allison, Lynn, and Hovermann, 2014; Coalition on the Academic Workforce, 2012; Eagan and Jaeger, 2009; Umbach, 2007). There is also a large body of literature that explores the experiences of faculty members of color (Joseph and Hirshfield, 2011; Stanley, 2006a; Turner, González, and Wood, 2008). However, there is very little research about the experiences of non-tenure-track faculty members of color (NTFOCs). This study centered the experiences of NTFOCs to understand how this group experiences racism and other forms of systematic oppression in their work environments. The theoretical frameworks for this study were critical race theory (CRT) (Bell, 1980; Delgado and Stefancic, 2012; Ladson-Billings and Tate, 1995) and critical race feminism (CRF) (Wing, 1997). Critical race methodology was integrated throughout the research process (Solórzano and Yosso, 2001; Solórzano and Yosso, 2002). The sample consisted of 24 NTFOCs who worked at four-year, historically White colleges and universities. Data was collected through semi-structured interviews. Ten themes emerged that revealed the ways NTFOCs experienced racism and marginalization in their work environments: (a) not treated like a professional; (b) lack of support; (c) formal discrimination; (d) racialized evaluations; (e) racialized and gendered microaggressions; (f) feeling unsafe in the classroom; (g) unpaid labor; (h) balancing job responsibilities; (i) lack of resources; (j) different treatment than White colleagues. Four additional themes regarding the ways NTFOCs navigated these experiences with oppression and marginalization: (a) relying on systems of support; (b) negotiating speaking out against forms of oppression; (c) disclosing personal information; (d) deciding how to interact with department/program colleagues. These findings have implications for the personal well-being of NTFOCs, how they perform their job, and their ability to gain secure employment. The findings highlight the need for campus constituents to recognize the work of NTOFCs and to create better work conditions for them. / Ph. D. / There has been a rapid rise in the number of non-tenure-track faculty members (Curtis, 2014). These faculty members are underpaid and lack job security relative to their tenured and tenured-track colleagues (Allison, Lynn, & Hovermann, 2014; Coalition on the Academic Workforce, 2012; American Federation of Teachers, 2010a). However, there is little research that considers race and the experiences of non-tenure-track faculty members of color (NTFOCs). This study sought to explore how NTFOCs experienced racism in their work environments. I interviewed, 24 non-tenure-track faculty members of color about the ways they experienced racism in their classrooms and departments, and how they navigated these experiences. Participants worked at predominantly and historically White colleges and universities across the United States. Ten themes emerged that revealed the ways NTFOCs experienced racism and marginalization in their work environments: (a) not treated like a professional; (b) lack of support; (c) formal discrimination; (d) racialized evaluations; (e) racialized and gendered microaggressions; (f) feeling unsafe in the classroom; (g) unpaid labor; (h) balancing job responsibilities; (i) lack of resources; (j) different treatment than White colleagues. Four additional themes regarding the ways NTFOCs navigated these experiences with oppression and marginalization: (a) relying on systems of support; (b) negotiating speaking out against forms of oppression; (c) disclosing personal information; (d) deciding how to interact with department/program colleagues. The findings highlight ways that NTFOCs are marginalized by the nature of their positions as well as intersections of racism and sexism.

This qualitative phenomenological dissertation explored The Departmental Work Lives of Full-Time Non-Tenure Track Faculty (FTNTT) at two public four-year universities located in the Southeastern region of the United States. This study is based on interviews with twelve (FTNTT) faculty members representing departments traditionally associated within the College of Arts and Sciences. This study found FTNTT faculty participants highly credentialed and reasonably satisfied in their positions. This study adds the descriptor heterogeneous to FTNTT faculty members’ job roles, work environments, daily engagements, and work experiences and contradicts existing literature that finds FTNTT faculty positions to be resource deficit and administratively non-supporting. Literature surrounding FTNTT faculty, Agency Theory, and the concepts of Agency of Perspective, Agency of Action, and Action of Avoidance informed this study. This study extended Agency of Action to include intentional, strategic behaviors of inaction (coined within this study as Action of Avoidance) toward the departmental contexts of policies and practices concerning discipline, employability, employment longevity, and personal FTNTT faculty career trajectories. Agency Theory, Agency of Perspective, Agency of Action, and Action of Avoidance, as identified by the researcher, emerged as strong frameworks used by FTNTT faculty to construct behaviors to successfully navigate long-term careers under short-term conditions. Based on FTNTT faculty responses, this study outlines policies and practices that are perceived as supportive or non-supportive. Policymakers may use this data to inform strategies for improving support among FTNTT faculty members.

No description available.