A Worthy Asset: The Adjunct Faculty and the Influences on Their Job Satisfaction

Abstract

The author explored the intrinsic factors that foster job satisfaction of adjunct faculty members working in the southeastern United States. The literature concerning adjunct work experiences is limited, although adjuncts comprise the great majority of the faculty pool in many community and technical colleges. Twenty-seven adjuncts’ work experiences were examined to identify the key intrinsic workplace factors that impact their job satisfaction. Data were collected concerning the adjuncts’ work environment; professional relationships with administrators, students, and fellow adjuncts; and the overall perceptions on job satisfaction. The findings, implications of the study, limitations of the study, and recommendations for improved adjunct job satisfaction are discussed.

Keywords: adjuncts, intrinsic factors, job satisfaction, Herzberg’s two-factor theory

Colleges are at a crossroads as traditional methods of teaching are challenged by the evolution of digital technologies that allow institutions to extend their reach by offering more classes to more students (Scott, 2010). Higher education institutions have increased the number of courses taught in the evenings, weekends, and online, while managing a reduced budget for faculty (Leslie & Gappa, 2002). The slumping economy coupled with the rising student enrollment contributes to the pressures faced by colleges in the United States (Scott, 2010). To meet the demands of students and manage the challenging budgets, colleges are employing increasing numbers of adjunct faculty members.

Adjunct faculty members are the part time and contingent instructors hired to work on a term by term basis (Gappa, Austin, & Trice, 2005). They often teach at multiple institutions or work a full time job to meet their financial goals (Bergmann, 2011; Wallin, 2005). Further, adjuncts usually are ineligible for benefits and paid considerably less than full time faculty per course. However, colleges benefit financially because adjunct faculty members teach courses for a fraction of what full time instructors command and at the most undesirable times—weekends and nights—with little to no dispute (Scott, 2010).

Hiring adjunct faculty members is not a new phenomenon. Adjunct faculty members lead the majority of student preparation in colleges. Seventy percent of all faculty teaching in public community and technical colleges are adjuncts (Wallin, 2005, p. 373). Even higher, 90% of all career college faculty members are part time employees (American Association of University Professors [AAUP], 2011). Moreover, there is a significant trend in higher education to increase the dependence on part time faculty (Leslie & Gappa, 2002).

This faculty majority is called upon to teach as needed with little prior notice and can be dismissed as deemed necessary by the college administrators (Cohen & Brawer, 2003; Wallin, 2005). According to Lyons (2007), adjuncts feel disconnected from the institution, yet they comprise the great majority of the faculty.

In this study, the related literature, methodology, research design, and findings are presented to address the intrinsic factors that influenced adjunct faculty members’ satisfaction.

Literature Review

While there are a multitude of quantitative and qualitative studies that explore the experience of adjunct faculty (Bergmann, 2011; Cashwell, 2009; Cunningham, 2010; Diener, 1985; Dolan, 2011; Edwards & Shepherd, 2007; Fouche, 2006; Gappa, Austin, & Trice, 2007; Gappa & Leslie, 1993; Green, 2007; Hoyt et al., 2008; Kayworth & Leidner, 2001; Leslie & Gappa, 2002; Scott, 2010; Truell, Price, & Joyner, 1998) to the author’s knowledge, there are limited research studies concerning the intrinsic factors that influence adjunct faculty members’ job satisfaction. Cunningham (2010) concluded there is a need to further study adjunct faculty in more detail.

A central theme that permeates all national studies on adjunct faculty is their feelings of isolation and lack of administrative support (Greive & Worden, 2000, p. 150). Gappa & Leslie (1993) add that adjunct faculty members are highly qualified and dedicated teaching professionals. However, they experience the greatest job dissatisfaction (Gappa et al., 2007).

A study conducted by Greive and Worden (2000) found that adjuncts are perceived as outside of the mainstream of the college community (p. 102). Beman (1980) added, “Unlike the regular faculty, adjuncts do not have lunch breaks, coffee breaks, nor casual conversations with colleagues and administrators” (p. 83). In sharing his experiences as a former adjunct, Beman (1980) stated, “I was once given a mailbox two hours away, which I was presumably expected to check several times a week” (p. 83). The research suggests that colleges have been content to employ adjuncts with little professional support (Leslie & Gappa, 2002).

Adjunct faculty members are often asked to enter the classroom, whether online or on campus, and accept the teaching leadership role with little to no support to ensure their success (Gappa et al., 2007). According to Smith (1980), this type of experience has caused a lack of understanding of the philosophy of the college, inaccurate perception of the students, unclear thoughts concerning course syllabi, and little knowledge of alternatives that may be available (pp. 17–18). Additionally, Bergum (2007) argues that if interaction is limited or nonexistent, trust cannot be developed. Trust must be present in the workplace to ensure employees’ satisfaction and success (Edwards & Shepherd, 2007).

Method

A criterion based sampling protocol was used to identify and recruit participants. The criteria centered on the following qualifications:

• Participants must have taught as an adjunct for at least one year.

• Participants must be willing to participate in two in person interviews.

• Participants must agree to the use of audio recording of the interview.

Research Design

This study embraced a qualitative research design. A qualitative study is a scientific research investigation that seeks answers to questions, embraces a systematic set of procedures to collect data, produces findings that were not readily known prior to the research study, and functions within the social contexts of a particular population (Creswell, 2013; Maxwell, 2005). Additionally, an inductive approach to data analysis was used in this study. The chief purpose for using an inductive approach was to permit the findings to “emerge from the frequent, dominant or significant themes inherent in raw data without the restraints imposed by structured methodologies” (Thomas, 2003, p.238 . The emergent themes can often be left invisible due to preconceptions in the data collection and data analysis procedures imposed by deductive data analysis such as those used in experimental and hypothesis testing research (Thomas, 2003).

Theoretical Framework

Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory was the framework that guided this study. The theory was first introduced in Herzberg’s book, The Motivation to Work in 1959 (Waltman, Hollenshead, & Miller, 2012). The Two Factor Theory suggested that employees have dissatisfying and satisfying factors or indicators that influence job satisfaction. Herzberg advised that one must understand what caused the employees’ dissatisfaction or satisfaction to best understand what motivates them (Cinar, Bektas, & Aslan, 2011). This theory was employed in the study to explain the factors that influenced the adjuncts’ job satisfaction.

Motivation factors contribute to satisfaction. The motivation factors are intrinsic factors that encourage employees to render superior performance. Satisfaction in the workplace is achieved when motivational factors are met (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959). The absence of these factors, conversely, leads to no satisfaction, rather than dissatisfaction. Further, the motivators are concerned with the job itself not the elements that surround the job (Waltman et al., 2012).

Data Analysis

In depth, semistructured interviews were the primary data collection method. The semistructured interviews involved posing open ended predetermined questions, along with probing follow up questions (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003). Two interviews were conducted with each participant. The initial interview was to establish rapport and gain insight on the work experiences of each adjunct. The second interview was conducted as a follow up meeting. This approach promoted informal communication in a familiar setting where adjuncts could freely share their work experiences (Kvale, 1996).

Findings

The purpose of the study was to explore the factors that influence their job satisfaction. Thomas (2006) outlined three systematic guidelines for inductive data analysis. The guidelines are (a) condense raw data into brief, summary format; (b) establish clear links between the research objectives; and (c) develop a framework of the underlying structure of experiences that are evident in the data. The interview statements within each interview were compared to those statements in each of the other participants’ interviews. From the inductive analysis, three job satisfaction factors emerged and are shown in Table 1.

Table 2 shows the frequency of the emergent motivation factors in the units of data. Additionally, examples of the initial codes interconnected to the factors, and the number of participants that shared experiences related to the job satisfaction factors are shown.

Implications for Practice

Three job satisfaction factors emerged in this study. For adjuncts across the country, there are a host of actions that can be employed to address the intrinsic factors that influence workplace satisfaction. The following discussion includes implications as well as recommendations to enhance adjuncts’ job satisfaction.

Recommendations for Administrators

Sweeney (2009) shared that a good start to embracing adjuncts would be valuing their input, providing fair treatment, honoring their contributions, and asking their opinions. To further support adjuncts’ job satisfaction the author offers recommendations to college administrators. Administrators could work a flexible schedule one or two days a week, so they may be on campus in the evenings and on the weekends. During this time, the administrator could provide light refreshments during a class break and invite adjuncts in for a few moments as a reprieve from students for social chat. This time may yield important information that the administrators would otherwise not receive in their traditional workday.

Another recommendation would be to obtain each adjunct’s e mail address, whether school issued or personal, and periodically send an e mail to engage the faculty member and thank them for their service to the college. The e mails could be short, a few sentences, and request that adjuncts share any needs or questions.

In addition to the communication recommendations, administrators can create an adjunct faculty counsel. This counsel could meet quarterly to discuss one success and one challenge. Each adjunct would discuss their workplace challenges and successes among their peers, and the group would decide which would be on their agenda for discussion. The meeting would occur on campus and would allow adjuncts that are off campus to call in to participate. The goal would be to inform administrators of the most pressing needs and workplace contributions of the adjunct faculty.

The aforementioned recommendations to administrators could create a partnership in education where adjuncts feel interconnected with their colleagues, leadership, students, and academic culture by giving them an active voice. For the administrators, they could become knowledgeable about the talents and services adjuncts bring to the college beyond their teaching, and thus allow for greater success in the overall operations of the college.

Limitations

This study included 27 adjuncts who worked in the southeastern United States at small community and technical colleges where the enrollment ranged from 300 to 900 students. The participants had taught only in community and technical colleges. While this study provided findings that may be present in the work experiences of other adjuncts, the findings cannot be generalized to all adjuncts working in the United States. There are many small to midsize colleges that offer graduate and online courses. Adjuncts teaching in those settings may have different work experiences than participants in this study, where mainly associated degrees and professional certificates are offered.

One additional limitation in this study was the diversity among the disciplines represented. While the age, gender, and ethnicity were diverse components in this study, 70% of the participants taught general education courses. A more diverse mix of adjuncts from various undergraduate and graduate degree programs may offer additional job satisfaction findings.

Conclusion

This study was conducted to explore the intrinsic factors that influenced the adjunct faculty members’ job satisfaction. Three emergent factors arose that impacted job satisfaction: Impacting Student Development, Academic Freedom, and Acknowledgment.

The adjuncts in this study overwhelmingly shared that they collaborated, supported, and acknowledged other adjuncts’ work. Additionally, the participants stated that they did not rely on their administrators to change leadership methods toward providing recognition of their work. Rather, the participants attributed their job satisfaction to the support derived from other adjuncts, the sharing of resources to perform their duties, the opportunity to influence student academic and professional development, and classroom autonomy.

The findings of this study concluded that the 27 adjuncts were generally satisfied at their respective colleges. This is a call to action for all adjuncts to embrace innovation and creativity in their work, support the work of colleagues, impact the development of students and personally embrace the notion that they are worthy assets to the college.

References

• American Association of University Professors (2011). The high price of for profit colleges. Retrieved June, 12, 2012, from http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2011/MJ/Feat/yeom.htm?PF=1
• Antony, J. S., & Valadez, J. R. (2002). Exploring the satisfaction of part time college faculty in the United States. The Review of Higher Education, 26(1), 41 56.
• Beman, R. R. (1980). Observations of an adjunct faculty member. New Directions for Community Colleges, 30, 81–84.
• Bergmann, D. (2011). A study of adjunct faculty (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (UMI No. 3468611).
• Bergum, S. (2007). What has happened to telework? Failure, diffusion or modification? The Journal of E working, 1. Retrieved from http://www.inderscience.com/www/info/ijwi/art/tjew1102.pdf
• Cashwell, A. L. (2009). Factors affecting part time faculty job satisfaction in Colorado Community College System (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (UMI No. 3400990).
• Cinar, O., Bektas, C., & Aslan, I. (2011). A motivation study on the effectiveness of intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Economics & Management, 16, 690–695.
• Cohen, A., & Brawer, F. (2003). The American community college. (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
• Creswell, J. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Cunningham, E. (2010). Contingent faculty at extended campuses: Framework for leaders (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest. (UMI No. 3488921).
• Diener, T. (1985). Job satisfaction and college faculty in two predominately black institutions. Journal of Negro Education, 54(4), 558–565.
• Dolan, V. (2011). The isolation of online adjunct faculty and its impact on their performance. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(2), 62–77.
• 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. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 893–900.
• Edwards, A. P., & Shepherd, G. J. (2007). An investigation of the relationship between implicit personal theories of communication and community behavior. Human Communication, 11(4). Retrieved from http://www.uab.edu/Communicationstudies/humancommunication/11.4.4.pdf
• Fouche I. (2006). A multi island situation without the ocean: Tutors’ perceptions about working in isolation from colleaguesInternational Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 7(2). Retrieved from http://irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/295/6.
• Gall, M., Gall, J., & Borg, W. (2003). Educational research: An introduction (7th). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
• 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., Austin, A. E., & Trice, A. G. (2005). Rethinking academic work and workplaces. Change, 37, 32–39.
• Gappa, J. M., Austin, A. E., & Trice, A. G. (2007). Rethinking faculty work: Higher education’s strategic imperative. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
• Gappa, J. M., & Leslie, D. (1993). The invisible faculty. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
• Gappa, J. M., Leslie, D. W. (1997). Two faculties or one? The conundrum of part timers in a bifurcated work force. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED424817
• Green, D. (2007). Adjunct faculty and the continuing quest for quality. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2007(140), 29–39.
• Greive, D. E., & Worden, C. A. (Eds.) (2000). Managing adjunct & part time faculty for the new millennium. Elyria, OH: Info Tec.
• Hagedorn, L. S. (2000). Conceptualizing faculty job satisfaction: Components, theories, and outcomes. In L. S. Hagedorn, What contributes to job satisfaction among faculty and staff (pp. 5–20). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
• Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1993). Motivation to work. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction.
• Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The motivation to work. New York, NY: Wiley.
• Hoyt, J. E., Howell, S. L., Glines, L. J., Johnson, C., Spackman, J. S., Thompson, C., & Rudd, C. (2008). Assessing part time faculty job satisfaction in continuing higher education: Implications for the profession. Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 56(1), 27–38.
• Jackofsky, E. F., & Peters, L. H. (1987). Part time and full time employment status differences: A replication and extension. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 8, 1–9.
• Kayworth, T. R., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Leadership effectiveness in global virtual teams. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(3), 7–40.
• Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. London, England: Sage.
• Leslie, D., & Gappa, J. M. (2002). Part time faculty: Competent and committed. New Directions for Community Colleges, 118, 59–67.
• Lyons, R. (2007). Best practices for supporting adjunct faculty. Bolton, MA: Anker.
• Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An integrated approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., & Elam, G. (2003). Designing and selecting samples. In M. Mason (2010).Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 11(3), Art. 8.
• Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Scott, K. (2010). Managing community college adjuncts in the 21st century (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (UMI No. 3427253).
• Smith, R. R. (1980). Can participatory programs realize part time faculty potential? New Directions for Community Colleges, 30, 17–25.
• Sweeney, I. (2009). If colleges valued students, they’d value adjuncts. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Value Students Then Value/48881/
• Thomas, D. R. (2003). A general inductive approach for qualitative data analysis. Working paper. Auckland, New Zealand: School of Population Health, University of Auckland.
• Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27, 237–246.
• Truell, A. D., Price, T., & Joyner, R.L. (1998). Satisfaction among community college occupational technical faculty. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 22(2), 111–122.
• Tuckman, B. (1978). Who is the part time in academe? AAUP Bulletin, 64, 305–351.
• Wallin, D. L. (2004). Valuing professional colleagues: Adjunct faculty in community and technical colleges. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 28(4), 373–391. doi: 10.1080/1066892049042408.
• Wallin, D. L. (2005). Adjunct faculty in community colleges. Boston, MA: Anker.
• Waltman, J., Hollenshead, C., & Miller, J. (2012). Factors contributing to job satisfaction and dissatisfaction among non tenure track faculty. Journal of Higher Education, 83(3), 411–434.