1 Kelsey Heiple Higher Education Administration Dr. Daniel Calhoun March 5, 2012 Case Study Analysis I.

Introduction/Background I chose to analyze the article Faculty Governance and Nontenure-Track Appointments for my case study. This article offers a closer look at the relationship between faculty governance and university-level nontenure-track faculty. Understandably, the majority of participation in university-level faculty governance is by tenured and tenure-track faculty as they have a much greater sense of responsibility to the institution through which they have received, or will receive, tenure. Most of the time, however, nontenure-track faculty members are left out of the mix. Whether it is due to exclusion or by choice, they often fail to participate in governance. As this demographic of faculty continues to see an astonishing increase in numbers, they have become a more integral part of faculty governance and, thus, must be represented. Institutions of higher education must take appropriate action to ensure that this group is represented in order to provide more thorough governance by faculty for the best interest of the institution itself and the students they serve. II. Issues of the Case The main purpose of this case was to highlight possible issues surrounding nontenuretrack faculty and the reasoning for their lack of participation in faculty governance. The article presents a number of reasons why nontenure-track faculty are largely unaccounted for in regards to faculty governance. The first of these reasons is what has been labeled the Free Rider

2 Hypothesis. The articles author, Joshua Morrison, explains his Free Ride Hypothesis by stating, One could argue that tenure-eligible faculty members desire the same goals as nontenure-eligible faculty, and if the collective interests of these academic citizens are already protected, then nontenure-track faculty have access to a free ride (2008). However, he goes on to explain that evidence of dissatisfaction among nontenure-track faculty with the representation they receive contradicts this theory. The article goes on to explain four additional reasons, all exclusion-related, for the lack of participation in university-level governance by nontenure-track faculty. The first, exclusion by faculty, considers an instance in which tenured and tenure-track faculty pressure their nontenure-track colleagues to avoid participation. The second exclusion-related reason for lack of participation is exclusion by institutional policy. Surprisingly, some institutions actually hold policies against the participation of nontenure-track faculty in university governance. Not only does it prohibit these faculty members from participation in governance but will also likely discourage them from any type of involvement in university events at all. Self-exclusion, another possible reason for lack of participation, describes nontenure-track faculty that may have heavy teaching loads or even other employment commitments that prevent them from making time for governance participation. Lastly, exclusion to avoid risk is a reason worth noting. Because of the potential for employment to be terminated at the end of their contract, nontenuretrack faculty may feel hesitant to voice an opinion, wanting to avoid any risk that could prevent contract renewal. The article takes it a step further and provides suggestions for future research and recommendations on how to improve the likelihood of participation in governance by nontenuretrack faculty. Morrison suggests that, due to the limited research indicating the actual

3 involvement of nontenure-faculty in governance, future research be conducted to quantify the extent to which they are actually involved (2008). Doing so might help institutions determine how best to encourage involvement. Furthermore, Morrison recommends that the most important thing that an institution can do is create a culture that respects all faculty, including nontenure-track appointments. Encouraging such a culture may be done through material rewards or by using department chairs as a catalyst because of their position. Other recommendations include building partnerships between nontenure-track faculty and their tenured and tenure-track colleagues, interdepartmentally and across campus, as well as nontenure-faculty advocating for themselves. III. Alternative Solution of the Case Although Morrison provides recommendations on how to better include nontenure-track faculty in university-level governance, I believe there are better ways to ensure that this integral part of faculty is represented in the decision-making process. The main differences between tenured, tenure-track, and nontenure-track faculty are their titles and a portion of their responsibilities. However, much attention has been given to the fact that they should be afforded the same respect and their differences should not be emphasized. If this is the case, they should hold the same responsibilities as far as governance involvement. Clearly defining the responsibilities of all faculty, to include participation in university governance, may help those involved to better understand the expectations placed upon them. Furthermore, instead of using department chairs as a catalyst for change, upper-level administrators themselves should encourage participation. Instructions to participate from administrators likely hold more weight than those from a division chair. Administrators should assure nontenure-track faculty that their jobs will not be in jeopardy should they choose to

4 participate in university governance. If nothing else, administrators should reiterate that participation in governance is not only a right but a responsibility. In the NEA 2010 Almanac of Higher Education, Adrianna Kezar and Cecilia Sam note that California State Universitys contracts list participation in governance among faculty obligations by stating, Faculty members have additional professional responsibilities such as: advising students, participation in campus and system wide committees, maintaining office hours, working collaboratively and productively with colleagues and participation in traditional academic functions (2010). This is not specific to tenured or tenure-track faculty only but to nontenure-track faculty, as well, and clearly states that all should participate in multiple institutional responsibilities including campus and system wide committees. Another solution would be to make participation in governance mandatory. An invitation to participate in governance is not enough. Contracts should require [nontenure-track faculty] inclusion in governance (Kezar & Sam, 2010). Making sure nontenure-track faculty know that participation is not an option would likely spur them into action. An institution could even go so far as to place each faculty member on a committee to ensure their opinion is heard. Lastly, in an article by Mayra Besosa, she outlines a number of ways to organize nontenure-track faculty, one of which suggests the formation of a nontenure-track faculty committee to keep up-to-date about the priorities and needs of this demographic of faculty (2011). Having a platform with this faculty demographic to discuss, form and voice opinions will reduce the risk associated with voicing ones own opinion while acquiring the respect necessary to give value to their opinion. IV. Factors Affecting the Success of the Alternative Solutions

5 With any solution, there are bound to be obstacles. Even if the expectation of participation in governance is clearly defined, whether encouraged by administrators, a formal statement regarding their responsibility to do so, or by mandating it, difficulties will still arise. In any case, there needs to be a desire and a willingness on behalf of the nontenure-track faculty to participate. If they are not already doing so, more drastic measures may be necessary. Furthermore, if participation is mandated, there must be a way to track it. Doing so would mean adding additional job responsibilities to department chairs and supervisors who may already be overloaded with work. In regards to forming a nontenure-track faculty committee, a willingness to participate must still be present. It would require participation by many in order to become effective; Having only a few nontenure-faculty members participate will not do much for gaining respect. Furthermore, even a large group may prove ineffective. Kezar and Sam explain that proportionality is an issue. [Nontenure-track faculty] total 50 to 70 percent of the faculty members on many campuses, but typically three to five individuals represent over 1,000 [nontenure-track faculty] (2010). Clearly, even a committee with an appointed leader may struggle to find respect for and value in their opinion when faced with a disproportionate audience. V. Conclusion It is difficult to surmise that there is an easy resolution to the issues presented by Morrison. Nontenure-track faculty feel undervalued and disrespected and, because of this, tend to steer clear of governance participation. However, they will continue to feel this way until they advocate for themselves and give others a reason to value their opinion. Thought by some to be an area strictly for permanent employees, governance is to be shared by all faculty, especially

6 considering the significant increase in nontenure-track faculty in the past several decades. Increasing from 3 percent in 1966 to 44 percent in 2004 (Morrison, 2008), nontenure-track appointments understandably play an integral part in university-level governance and should not be excluded. If decisions continue to be made at an institutional-level without the input of one of higher educations most rapidly increasing demographics, the future of higher education and the students it serves will suffer.

7 References Besosa, M. (2011). Faculty Forum: Ways to Organize Non-Tenure-Track Faculty. Academe, 97(6). Retrieved from http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2011/ND/col/ffbesosa.htm Kezar, A., & Sam, C. (2010). Beyond Contracts: Non-tenure Track Faculty and Campus Governance. The NEA 2010 Almanac of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/home/38294.htm Morrison, J.D. (2008). Faculty Governance and Nontenure-Track Appointments. New Directions for Higher Education, 143, 21-27. doi:10.1002/he