• unlimited access with print and download
    $ 37 00
  • read full document, no print or download, expires after 72 hours
    $ 4 99
More info
Unlimited access including download and printing, plus availability for reading and annotating in your in your Udini library.
  • Access to this article in your Udini library for 72 hours from purchase.
  • The article will not be available for download or print.
  • Upgrade to the full version of this document at a reduced price.
  • Your trial access payment is credited when purchasing the full version.
Continue searching

Relationship between adjunct and full-time faculty teaching at a for-profit university

ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 2009
Author: Sarah A Strom Kays
This qualitative case study explored the workplace relationships of adjunct and full-time faculty teaching at a for-profit university. The study was conducted at one campus of Segway University. Faculty in this study included men and women and represented different academic departments. All full-time faculty participants had experience teaching as adjunct faculty members. The adjunct faculty in this study all possessed industry-related experience. Findings from this study included an understanding of the perceived relationships and an identification of workplace tensions and competition between the two faculty groups. Administrators and faculty can use the results of this study to improve their workplace relationships by identifying the factors contributing to workplace tension and competition.

Table of Contents Chapter 1 1 Overview 1 Statement Of The Research Problem 6 Research Questions 8 Definition Of Terms 8 Study Limitations And Delimitations 9 Rationale For The Study 10 Researcher's Perspective 11 Chapter 2 14 Adjunct Faculty Defined 15 Hiring Adjunct Faculty: Advantages And Disadvantages 15 Advantages 16 Cost Savings 16 Flexibility 17 Expertise 19 Disadvantages 21 Dissatisfied Workers 22 Credentials And Knowledge 22 Inconsistency Of Standards 23 Involvement 23 Adjunct Faculty: Impact On Students 25 Availability And Time On Campus 26 Instructional Methods 27 Assessment And Class Preparation 29 Adjunct Faculty: Relationships With Full-Time 30 Adjunct Status And Perceived Commitment 31 Time On Campus 31 Non-Instructional Activities 32 Adjunct Faculty: Characteristics 33 Adjunct Faculty: Working Conditions 35 Compensation And Benefits 36 Institutional Support 39 Suggestions For Improvement 39 Proprietary Institutions 42 Non-Profit And For-Profit Differences 42 Characteristics Of For-Profit Institutions 44 Students At For-Profit Institutions 46 Faculty At For-Profit Institutions 48 v

Chapter 3 51 Restatement Of Purpose Of Inquiry And Research Questions 51 Research Design And Rationale 52 Site And Participants 54 Data Collection 59 Data Analysis 61 Theoretical Lens To Organize Data 63 Organizational Socialization 64 Organizational Culture And Change 66 In-Group/Out-Group Affiliations 67 Trustworthiness 68 Chapter 4 70 Participant Profiles 71 Sean, Adjunct 71 Rick, Adjunct : 72 Jose, Adjunct 73 Jack, Full-Time 73 Molly, Full-Time 74 Patsy, Full-Time 75 Scott, Full-Time 75 Findings 76 Organizational Socialization 77 Organizational Entry And Assimilation 78 Socialization Strategies 78 Training And Mentoring 79 Information Giving And Seeking 84 Relationship Development 87 Organizational Changes 93 Enrollment 94 Hiring Freeze 95 Scheduling 97 Facilities 99 In-Group And Out-Group Affiliations 100 In-Group: Job Insecurity 101 In-Group: Adjunct Experiences 103 In-Group: Inequities 105 Outgoup: Full-Time With Adjunct 106 VI

Chapter 5: I l l Findings And Implications 113 Competitive Relationships & Limited Interaction 114 Mentors 116 Group Affiliation 118 Recommendations For Future Research 120 Conclusion 122 References 124 Appendix A 129 Appendix B 130 Appendix C 132 vn

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Overview Colleges and universities hired adjunct faculty to help meet their teaching goals. In reviewing the literature on adjunct faculty five themes were evident: advantages and disadvantages of hiring adjunct faculty; their impact on students; relationships between adjunct and full-time faculty; characteristics of adjunct faculty; and their working conditions. The terms adjunct faculty and part-time faculty are used interchangeably in some of the literature (Banerji, 2002; Crannell, 1998). In this case study the term adjunct faculty will be used to refer to this contingent workforce. This qualitative case study will explore an intrinsically bounded phenomenon (Merriam, 1998). The study location was one campus of a for-profit university in a large suburban area and included participants teaching during the semester the interviews were conducted. Adding to the meaning of the participants' responses were thick descriptions (Merriam, 1998). For-profit institutions have been an emerging trend in postsecondary education. Around for years (Kirp, 2003), advances in technology enabled these types of institutions to reach a greater number and a wider range of students (Winston, 1999). Much of the literature orfcfor-profit institutions centered on the services offered to students, the differences between for-profit and non-profit postsecondary schools, and the characteristics of for-profit institutions. The literature on the faculty (both adjunct and 1

full-time) considered the ratio of adjunct to full-time, teaching styles, and their expertise. The following overview briefly explores the dominate themes in the literature on adjunct faculty. These themes are discussed in more detail in chapter two. Hiring: Advantages and Disadvantages The most common reasons for hiring adjunct faculty were enrollment changes, curricular changes, and cost efficiency (Schuster, 1998; Jacobs, 1998; Foster & Foster, 1998; Smith, 2001; Benjamin, 2002). By hiring adjunct faculty, administrators believed a quality education could be delivered for less money than hiring full-time faculty (Foster & Foster, 1998). If an adjunct faculty member's services were not needed, they were simply not contracted or hired (Foster & Foster, 1998), representing a cost savings for the organization (Gappa, 1984). In turn, if enrollment exceeded expectations, more adjunct faculty were hired to teach additional course sections (Langenberg, 1998). This flexibility allowed administrators to meet changes in enrollment and operate within their budgets. Another advantage was the professional expertise adjunct faculty members possessed (Straw, 2002; Lane, 2002; Avakian, 1995; Crannell, 1998) and their connections to the community and to industry (Gappa, 2000; Wyles, 1998). And, according to Frick (1997), adjunct faculty often possessed the same academic credentials as full-time faculty. Disadvantages of hiring adjunct faculty included their lack of time on campus for either office hours (Schuster, 1998; Straw, 2002) or meetings (Frick, 1997), and their lack of credentials or qualifications (Benjamin, 2002; Hickman, 1998; Smith, 2001). Because they were not on campus, adjunct faculty were not able to engage with full-time faculty on topics ranging from student performance expectations to program development. Generally, adjunct faculty were not required to research or publish as part of their 2

employment. Their professional expertise was considered appropriate to teach at the institution and supplanted their lack of credentials (Benjamin, 2002). Impact on Students Adjunct faculty members had an impact on students in terms of instructional methods and available time. Adjunct faculty who desired full-time teaching positions, for example, would use a greater variety of teaching methods than those who were not seeking full-time employment (Keim & Biletzky, 1999). However, adjunct faculty were less likely to use time consuming assessments such as essay exams (Benjamin, 1998) and spent less time on class preparation than full-time faculty members (Academe, 1998). In contrast, Leslie and Gappa (2002) found almost no differences in the instructional methods used by adjunct and full-time faculty. They did find that full-time faculty members who taught more classes than adjunct faculty members spent significantly more time on administration, teaching, advising, and interacting with students (Leslie & Gappa, 2002). While full-time faculty reported spending time with students outside of class, adjunct faculty reported they were less likely to do so. According to Schuetz (2002), adjunct faculty were more likely to report that they did not spend time with students outside of class. Working Conditions At community colleges, four-year colleges, and research universities, adjunct faculty faced similar working conditions. One of the reasons cited for adjunct faculty not spending time with students outside of class was that they were not compensated for doing so (Benjamin, 1998). Limited office space (Shumar, 1999; Leslie, 1998), lack of job security (Lane, 2002), not being included in the department (Church, 1999), and low 3

salaries (Gappa & Leslie, 1993) were all mentioned in the literature as challenges adjunct faculty members experienced. Full-time faculty did not experience the same work-related challenges that adjunct faculty faced. Institutional support for adjunct faculty included e- mail, office space, and the necessary tools to do the job (Avakian, 1995). Providing adjunct faculty with these tools improved the working conditions of adjunct faculty, improved communication, and included them as part of the institution. The documented growth of hiring adjunct faculty indicates that higher education will continue to rely on this temporary work force. Colleges and universities hired adjunct faculty to quickly meet their temporary teaching needs (Jacobs, 1998). Hiring adjunct faculty saved the institution money (Schuster, 1998; Benjamin, 2002; Yackee, 2000) and offered flexibility in scheduling classes (Bolge, 1995; Haeger, 1998) with professionals with 'real world' expertise (Crannell, 1998). For-Profit Institutions For-profit institutions were making an impact on higher education (Kirp, 2003). Their faculty were more focused on preparing students for specific careers rather than developing and implementing a research agenda (Pusser & Doane, 2001). Schools that operated for a profit were not a new phenomenon and were perceived with increased credibility (Kirp, 2003). Many schools were accredited offering associate, bachelor, and professional degrees which allowed students to apply for grants and federal loans (National Center for Postsecondary Improvement, 2001). For-profit institutions still enrolled fewer students than non-profit institutions, and they were often the schools of choice for many minority students (NCPI, 2001). These schools often appealed to the adult working student with classes available in the evenings and on weekends (Winston, 4

1999). Faculty members teaching these non-standard scheduled classes were both adjunct and full-time. Not all for-profit schools relied heavily on adjunct faculty, and, in fact, some of them had more than half their credit hours taught by full-time faculty (Ruch, 2001). At the University of Phoenix, only 45 full-time faculty were employed to teach their 45,000 students with the vast majority of the faculty being adjunct (Ruch, 2001). As with non-profit schools, for-profit schools were hiring both adjunct and full-time faculty to meet their instructional needs. Adjunct and Full-time Relationships From a group perspective, there was a strong correlation between the amount of cohesion among group members and their level of satisfaction and effectiveness (Littlejohn, 1989). Groups are defined as individuals who interacted with one another, were interdependent, and had a common goal (Engleberg & Wynn, 2003; Littlejohn, 1989). In-group and out-group boundaries offered an explanation of how adjunct and full-time faculty interacted. Groups in which individuals felt emotionally close and similar were considered in-groups (Ting-Toomey & Chung, 2005). In contrast, out- groups consisted of individuals who felt competitive and did not have emotional ties to one another (Ting-Toomey & Chung, 2005). Primary and secondary tension was not uncommon among group members (Engleberg & Wynn, 2003). Primary tension resulted from group members' inhibitions as they got to know one another (Brilhart, Galanes, & Adams, 2001) and was resolved as group members became familiar with one another (Engleberg & Wynn, 2003). When group members did not interact, the primary tension was not reduced and it continued to impact their relationships and work performance (Brilhart, Galanes, & Adams, 2001). 5

When group members were comfortable and primary tension was reduced, they experienced secondary tension and began to argue their positions and seek social acceptance and achievement in the group (Brilhart, Galanes, & Adams, 2001). Statement of the Research Problem What was missing from the literature was an analysis of the relationship between adjunct faculty and full-time faculty teaching at for-profit postsecondary institutions. Adjunct faculty were teaching an increasing number of classes at for-profit institutions along with their full-time colleagues. Adjunct faculty taught fewer classes than full-time faculty, so there were more adjuncts on campus to meet the demand for classes. Increasing the number of people in an organization increases struggles for power, competition for scarce resources, and misunderstandings (Modaff, DeWine, & Butler, 2008). The literature on the relationship between adjunct and full-time faculty teaching at non-profit institutions identified tension between the two groups. From the full-time perspective, the adjunct faculty were committed to the institution but did not spend time on non-teaching tasks such as curriculum development and advising. This meant more work for the full-time faculty who assumed these duties (Avakian, 1995; Gappa & Leslie, 1993). Adjunct faculty at non-profit institutions did not receive the same benefits or support as full-time faculty, and they felt marginalized (Shumar, 1999) and were resentful of full-time faculty (Leslie, 1998). Further, adjunct faculty believed full-time faculty were arrogant and did not understand their struggles or support their efforts (Tolbert, 1998). Finally, in the literature on non-profit institutions, both adjunct and full-time faculty recognized the job insecurity associated with hiring an increasing number of adjunct 6

faculty. Full-time faculty saw positions being eliminated (Tolbert, 1998; Banachowski, 1996), and adjunct faculty were striving to maintain their current assignments (Hickman, 1998) or were seeking full-time positions while teaching as an adjunct (Tyree, Grunder, & O'Connell, 2000). Barriers existed that prevented relational development between adjunct and full-time faculty. An absence of a workplace relationship hinders job learning and increases work-adjustment stress (Jablin, 2001), competition for resources, struggles for power, and misunderstandings between individuals (Modaff, DeWine, & Butler 2008). Little research had been conducted to examine the workplace relationships between adjunct and full-time faculty teaching at a for-profit, degree-offering university. An understanding of adjunct and full-time faculty relationships would facilitate problem- solving, identify tensions, increase understandings, improve group cohesiveness, and offer insights to improve the working environment. The number of for-profit colleges and universities was increasing. Some familiar schools, the University of Phoenix for example, relied heavily on adjunct faculty, while others, like Argosy University, continued to staff classrooms primarily with full-time faculty (Ruch, 2001). Adjunct and full-time faculty with non-profit teaching experiences were teaching at for-profit institutions (Ruch, 2001) and experienced the organizational tensions between academics and business (Kirp, 2003), which was different from their previous experiences. Full-time faculty teaching at for-profit schools did not have tenure, freedom to develop curriculum, or faculty governance organizations (Winston, 1999). The teaching environment and job security was different at for-profits than it was at non profits. The literature on for-profit institutions did not discuss the relationship between 7

adjunct and full-time faculty, and the literature on adjunct faculty did not discuss their workplace relationships with full-time colleagues at for-profit colleges. This case study focused on the relationship between adjunct and full-time faculty teaching at a for-profit, private university that offered both bachelor's and associate's degrees. The purpose was to examine the perceived workplace relationships between adjunct and full-time faculty teaching at a for-profit university. Research Questions This study was guided by the following research questions: 1. What is the relationship between adjunct and full-time faculty at a for-profit university? 2. How is this relationship perceived by adjunct faculty members at a for-profit university? 3. How is this relationship perceived by full-time faculty members at a for-profit university? Definition of Terms Certain terms were used throughout this study. To offer clarity and consistency, these terms are defined here. Adjunct faculty were temporary or part-time professors who were paid as contractors by the course or number of credits without receiving employee benefits (Shumar, 1999). They were not employed full-time as faculty members by the hiring institution. At this university, the total number of credit hours an adjunct faculty member taught could not exceed 30 in three consecutive semesters. Adjunct faculty in this study 8

included professionals teaching out of interest, retired professionals, and individuals who sought a full-time teaching position. They all stated a need for the extra income. Full-time faculty were employed at an institution on a continual basis and received employee benefits. Although they worked without a contract, there was an understanding the full-time faculty at this university would be granted a full-time teaching load unless a formal termination from the employer was issued. Further, tenure was not available at this university and was not an identifier full-time faculty status. For-profit postsecondary institutions were private, degree-granting schools operating for a profit in which stockholders received financial benefit (Ruch, 2001). These organizations were tax-paying. Study Limitations and Delimitations This case study had limitations and delimitations. According to Merriam (1998) ".. .the single most defining characteristic of case study research lies in delimiting the object of study, the case" (p. 27). The delimitations of this case were the location, the active teaching staff at the time of the interviews, and the academic semester of the interviews. One limitation was because the interviews occurred on campus, the participants may not have responded as honestly as they would if the interviews were conducted off campus (DeVito, 2004). Another limitation was job insecurity. Participation by full-time and adjunct faculty might have been influenced by their perceived insecurity in their teaching positions. Generalizability of case studies is a consideration, but it can be enhanced by using thick, rich descriptions (Merriam, 1998). The researcher should have provide "enough description so the readers will be able to 9

determine how closely their situations match the research situation, and hence, whether findings can be transferred" (Merriam, 1998, p. 211). Rationale for the Study For-profit schools have been in competition with non-profit institutions for students in the United States (Kirp, 2003). One cost-effective way to deliver course content was to hire adjunct faculty. In saving money on faculty, the organization earned a greater profit which, in turn, was profitable for the stockholders. Adjunct faculty continued to be hired to meet demand for new technologies and trends. For-profit schools aimed to meet employers' hiring needs by responding to market trends with education and training in current practices (NCPI, 2001). Adjunct faculty members enabled an institution to respond quickly to changing trends and meet student and employer demands. This study begins to develop a foundation for understanding the impact of adjunct professors at for-profit institutions by exploring the perceived relationships between adjunct and full-time faculty. Administrators at the for-profit institution where the study took place can use the results of this study to better understand the institutional culture that either exists or may develop when hiring both adjunct and full-time professors. This information may also be helpful to for-profit administrators working at new and developing organizations as well as for leaders of other teaching institutions. Further, full-time and adjunct faculty members may find the results of this study helpful in understanding their relationships with one other. 10

The for-profit college environment described in the literature was different from the one described for non-profit colleges and universities. Unlike many non-profit colleges and universities where tenure was available, neither full-time nor adjunct faculty had tenure at a for-profit institution (Ruch, 2001). Further, curriculum development at for-profit institutions was centralized by an administrative body instead of faculty (Ruch, 2001). For-profit adjunct and full-time faculty were affected similarly by issues like job security and curriculum development. However, it was unclear whether adjunct and full- time faculty were aware of their similarities and if the workplace relationships that existed at non-profit colleges were similar to the workplace relationships between adjunct and full-time faculty teaching at for-profit institutions. Researcher's Perspective One measure of internal validity for a qualitative study is clearly identifying the researcher's perspective and world view (Merriam, 1998). I have worked at both for- profit and non-profit universities as an administrator, an adjunct faculty member, and a full-time faculty member. In my administrative positions, I worked closely with full-time and adjunct faculty in hiring, firing, contracting, and training. I also worked with other academic administrators at both non-profit and for-profit institutions on a range of issues, including budgeting, scheduling classes, and developing new academic programs. My professional experiences exposed me to three perspectives: as an adjunct faculty member; as an administrator who hired and trained adjunct and full-time faculty; and as a full-time faculty member. I am currently a full-time faculty member at a non profit institution, and my involvement with adjunct faculty is more collegial than the 11

types of relationships described in the literature on non-profit institutions. As an adjunct faculty member, I developed relationships with other adjunct and full-time faculty members who were teaching on evenings and weekends with me. As an administrator, I talked with adjunct faculty about their availability, teaching interests, resolving conflicts with students, hiring (and not hiring), training, and other administrative duties. Having taught as an adjunct, I understand many of the challenges and rewards associated with the position. As a former administrator, I also understand the scheduling, programming, and budgetary flexibility offered by hiring adjunct faculty. At times, I experienced tense workplace interactions between adjunct and full- time faculty. Department meetings became uncomfortable when arguments erupted over course content or curricular changes between full-time and adjunct faculty. Based on conversations I had with full-time colleagues, some of them perceived adjunct faculty as a threat, and they worried their full-time positions would be eliminated and all classes would be staffed by adjuncts. Likewise, some adjunct colleagues perceived full-time faculty as disinterested in them and unimpressed with their efforts. Many believed full- time faculty members had easy jobs at the institution, enjoying course and scheduling preferences, academic influence, and short work weeks. The purpose of this case study is to describe the relationship between adjunct and full-time faculty teaching at a for-profit university. Three research questions were used in the study and are identified in this chapter. The terms adjunct faculty, full-time faculty, and for-profit postsecondary institutions were defined. This case study begins to offer an understanding of the perceived relationships between adjunct and full-time faculty working at a for-profit university. The findings of this study will be helpful for 12

administrators working at for-profit institutions. Finally, my perspective as the researcher was presented. 13

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW This literature review first examines adjunct faculty teaching at non-profit colleges and universities. The themes identified from the literature include the advantages and disadvantages of hiring adjunct faculty, the impact adjunct faculty had on students, the relationship adjunct faculty had with full-time faculty, the characteristics of adjunct faculty, and finally, the suggestions from the literature to improve the working conditions of adjunct faculty. After this discussion, the literature on for-profit colleges and universities is presented. Included in this review are the differences between non-profit and for-profit colleges and universities, characteristics of for-profit institutions, the students enrolled at for-profit schools, and the faculty teaching at for-profit colleges and universities. To understand the relationships between adjunct and full-time faculty teaching at a for-profit university, it is first necessary to review the available literature on the adjunct teaching enterprise. For-profit colleges and universities were not represented in the literature on adjunct faculty. The literature on for-profit colleges and universities was reviewed to offer insight into these types of institutions. They are different from non profit schools, generally, in terms of teaching approaches, faculty positions, and curricular development. The literature review begins with a definition of adjunct faculty. 14

Adjunct Faculty Defined Gappa and Leslie (1993) defined adjunct faculty as temporary faculty who are employed less than full-time and who are non-tenure track. Their definition included graduate students who were teaching part-time. Adjuncts, as defined by Shumar (1999), were professors who did not receive benefits and were paid on a per-course basis as contractors. Gappa (2000) stated the new faculty majority was comprised of full-time and adjunct faculty who were ineligible for tenure. An adjunct faculty member was hired to teach between one and three course sections on a semester basis (Bolge, 1995). According to Langenberg (1998), adjunct faculty had primary employment outside of academe. In some of the literature (Banerji, 2002; Crannell, 1998), the terms part-time and adjunct were used interchangeably. For the purposes of this review the term adjunct faculty will be used for part-time, contract, and adjunct faculty. Hiring Adjunct Faculty: Advantages and Disadvantages For non-profit colleges and universities there were advantages and disadvantages associated with hiring adjunct faculty. The advantages can be grouped, generally, into cost savings, staffing flexibility, and seeking professional expertise. Disadvantages identified in the literature included dissatisfied adjunct faculty, differences in credentials and knowledge, inconsistency of standards, and campus involvement. 15

Advantages of Hiring Adjunct Faculty Hiring adjunct faculty offered administrators flexibility in scheduling, in staffing, and in their budgets. Schuster (1998) and Jacobs (1998) and others identified budgetary reasons for hiring adjunct faculty because adjunct faculty cost less than full-time faculty. Changes in the job market, increases in enrollment, and expertise were important factors in hiring adjunct faculty (Jacobs, 1998). Adjunct faculty were a temporary solution. Further, scheduling difficulties could be addressed with adjunct faculty. They offered a quick way to hire temporary instructional help when full-time faculty were not available to teach a class (Jacobs, 1998). "They do important work for our institutions, and they are likely to continue to do so in the future. We can neither, ignore their presence nor engage in the wishful fantasy that some day all faculty will be full-time and on the tenure track" (Gappa & Leslie, 1993, p. 7). Foster and Foster (1998) stated that hiring adjunct faculty shifted the authority in higher education from faculty to administration. Cost Savings Institutions had a variety of reasons for hiring adjunct faculty, and the most commonly cited argument was cost savings. Adjunct faculty were hired to save the institution money (Benjamin, 2002; Jacobs, 1998; Schuster, 1998; Gappa & Leslie, 1993) and reach short-term goals (Academe, 1998). By not hiring full-time faculty, institutions had more flexibility with their budgets (Jacobs, 1998) since adjunct faculty worked for lower pay than full-time faculty (Straw, 2002; Foster & Foster, 1998; Haeger, 1998; and Langenberg, 1998), and the institution did not have to subsidize sick leave, pensions, and health care (Banachowski, 1996). Colleges and universities were often teaching more 16

students with less money in their budgets (Leslie, 1998), adjunct faculty were equally effective in the classroom as full-time faculty, and they did the job for less money (Schuster, 1998). Adjunct faculty offered community colleges a low-cost means to deliver more classes (Yackee, 2000; Avakian, 1995; Bolge, 1995), to be flexible in meeting demand (Tyree, Grunder, & O'Connell, 2000; Banachowski, 1996), and to maintain a full course schedule in tight financial times (Bolge, 1995). The trend in hiring adjunct faculty was based on increased costs in relationship to revenues, staffing flexibility, more individuals with advanced degrees who cannot get full-time positions, and college growth (Valadez & Anthony, 2001). Gappa and Leslie (1998) and Academe (1998) both recommended hiring adjunct faculty for educational and not purely economical reasons. Institutions would not take this less-expensive route if they thought that the outcome would be detrimental. "...[Administrators no doubt believe that they are benefiting their institutions and assume that they can deliver the same 'product', a quality education, for less money" (Foster & Foster, 1998, p. 32). In other words, as Langenberg (1998) explained, adjunct faculty did good work cheaply. Flexibility Staffing flexibility was another reason for hiring adjunct faculty. "Increasing enrollment, financial hard times, and the need for flexibility have made institutions more wary about long-term commitments to tenure, especially when a talented workforce who will accept employment with lower salaries, shorter time commitments, and no benefits is readily available" (Gappa, 2000, p. 79). Enrollments fluctuated (Academe, 1998; Foster 17

& Foster, 1998; Langenberg, 1998) and adjuncts were expendable (Straw, 2002; Shumar, 1999). Changes in the economy and the job market caused an increase in enrollment (Jacobs, 1998) as workers returned to school to refresh skills or acquire new ones. Hiring an adjunct faculty member enabled a college to meet the training needs of local businesses, involve the community, or offer a new course and test the students' response to it without committing to full-time faculty (Yackee, 2000). Further, adjunct faculty met the demand for curricular specializations that the institution may not yet be willing to commit (Academe, 1998), or they offered the expertise and specialization that full-time faculty did not possess (Jacobs, 1998; Leslie, 1998). In 1998 Wyles projected an increase in demand for adjunct faculty. Adjunct faculty taught primarily introductory courses (Benjamin, 2002; Academe, 1998; Crannell, 1998; Schuster, 1998) and made up the majority of the teaching staff at community colleges (Benjamin, 2002; Lane, 2002; Leslie & Gappa, 2002; Banachowski, 1996). Many full-time faculty did not want to teach large, introductory sections of a course (Smith, 2001) or were not available (Yackee, 2000), so adjunct faculty were hired to teach them instead (Benjamin, 2002). Adjunct faculty allowed colleges to meet regional demands for credit and not-for-credit day and evening courses (Yackee, 2000; Bolge, 1995). Adjunct faculty also permitted an institution to be more flexible when it came to offering evening (Academe, 1998) and weekend courses scheduled outside of traditional teaching hours, delivering flexibility that the institution did not otherwise have (Langenberg, 1998). This flexibility, in addition to scheduling options, also included the opportunity to offer a variety of academic programs (Langenberg, 1998). By hiring an adjunct faculty 18

Full document contains 140 pages
Abstract: This qualitative case study explored the workplace relationships of adjunct and full-time faculty teaching at a for-profit university. The study was conducted at one campus of Segway University. Faculty in this study included men and women and represented different academic departments. All full-time faculty participants had experience teaching as adjunct faculty members. The adjunct faculty in this study all possessed industry-related experience. Findings from this study included an understanding of the perceived relationships and an identification of workplace tensions and competition between the two faculty groups. Administrators and faculty can use the results of this study to improve their workplace relationships by identifying the factors contributing to workplace tension and competition.