1

Nontenure-track faculty members face both challenges

and opportunities.

Nontenure-Track Faculty: Rising

Numbers, Lost Opportunities
Kate Thedwall
A history of the professoriate would not be complete without an account of
nontenure-track faculty. Whether these faculty members are referenced
using the terms contingent, part time, contract, adjunct, clinical, research,
visiting, lecturer, or senior lecturer, they constitute a group of faculty who
have lived and worked at the margins of academia for some time.
This chapter discusses the history of the nontenure-track faculty, the
benefits of their appointments, and the challenges and opportunities that
these faculty face. The focus here is on those who are primarily serving as
teachers, as opposed to other roles.

Historical Overview of Faculty Appointments

This discussion of nontenure-track faculty appointments begins with a
historical perspective. Nontenure-eligible faculty have been part of the fabric
of U.S. colleges and universities for well over a century. Following the Civil
War and the passage of the Morrill Land Grant Act (1862), states were
charged with preparing students for roles as leaders and intelligent participants in the U.S. democratic system. At the same time, faculty who earned
doctorates abroad or worked with European researchers began to base their
expectations and culture on a model of the research university originating
in Germany. Much of todays image of the professoriate continues in this
tradition. With the creation of land-grant institutions, the number of

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION, no. 143, Fall 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/he.308

11

12

FACULTY AT THE MARGINS

university faculty members grew exponentially. These faculty became state

government employees and enjoyed the same rights as other state employees.
During these early years of land-grant institutions, faculty began to divide
into ranks. The University of Wisconsin and Cornell University were two
of the first universities to divide faculty into assistant, associate, and full
professor ranks, and these same institutions, according to Gappa, Austin,
and Trice (2007) codified the procedures for advancement in rank and for
the probationary period prior to advancement to tenure (p. 51). Tenure as
we know it became part of the fabric of the academy.
By 1915, the American Association of University Professors was
formed. Faculty at this time argued for the German tradition of the
freedom to study, teach and advance unpopular ideas publicly, and labeled
this academic freedom (Rudolph, 1990, cited in Gappa, Austin, and Trice,
2007, p. 52). Besides academic freedom, Americans added the idea of
continuous employment to protect the idea of freedom of expression and
economic security (Rudolph, 1990). The 1940s Statement on Principles of
Academic Freedom and Tenure articulated these values and was endorsed
by college presidents and learned societies (Euben, 2006). The statement
did not talk about the role of nontenure-track faculty but established the
foundation of tenure-track faculty appointments and their status in
academe.
After World War II, returning soldiers used their government-subsidized
tuition benefits and flooded into American colleges and universities. Besides
subsidizing research, the federal government also assisted new student
college careers by establishing the first federal student aid programs
(Rudolph, 1990). As student enrollment grew 500 percent between 1945
and 1975, the American faculty had indeed reached the golden age (Gappa,
Austin, and Trice, 2007; Cohen, 1998). During these decades, rising enrollments forced administrators to find a way to meet the enrollment numbers
and deal with rising costs. At the same time, faculty unions were becoming
more prevalent following the recessions of the late 1970s and early 1980s,
when faculty salaries were cut or frozen. Administrators faced faculty who
had not had a raise in several years or who actually had their salaries cut.
These administrators still needed to staff class sections and offer senior
faculty, and in some cases, unionized senior faculty, legitimate concessions.
The time had arrived for hard questions. How would colleges and universities stay in the black, keep standards high, and still have classes to
offer? Some institutions, according to Holub (2003), chose to reduce staff,
halt faculty and staff hiring and promote early retirement (p. 3). But the
most lasting solution lay with increasing the employment of part-time
faculty, who worked for lower wages, required little or no professional
development support, and could be hired or released quickly as enrollments
fluctuated (American Association of University Professors, 2003; Meyer,
1998; Baldwin and Chronister, 2001).
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION DOI: 10.1002/he

NONTENURE-TRACK FACULTY

13

It appears most likely that this pattern of employment will continue.

As Jacobs (1998) said in reference to the constraints of economics, personnel, and time, Even this recovering administrator can see the stark reality
that those constraining issues are not transient; they are permanent and
there will never be enough money, time or personnel to eliminate the
problem caused by scarce resources (p. 10).

The Current Situation

The issue of nontenure-track faculty has become a heated one in higher
education (American Association of University Professors, 2003; Albert,
2003). Increasing the employment of nontenure-track faculty answered the
demand for professors but raised the question of whether tenure or tenure-track
status mattered (Ehrenberg and Zhang, 2005). This question still lingers
from the 1970s. Justified, debated, and researched, nontenure-track faculty
currently make up more than 58 percent of university faculty at four-year
colleges and universities (American Association of University Professors,
2006; Baldwin and Chronister, 2001). At public two-year colleges,
nontenure-eligible faculty make up approximately 83 percent of the
teaching faculty (American Association of University Professors, 2006).
Full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty at two- and four-year institutions decreased dramatically from 56.8 percent in 1975, to 41.1 percent
in 1995 to 35.1 percent in 2003 (American Association of University
Professors, 2006). Although the late 1990s brought a reversal of the U.S.
economy, nontenure-track faculty have not been replaced by tenure-track
or tenured faculty. Baldwin and Chronister (2001) suggest that other
external factors have prevented higher education from increasing tenuretrack faculty positions, including losing the publics trust and confidence;
federal policies influencing faculty personnel policies; the high cost of
implementing new technologies; flexibility required for distance education;
increased competition for students from for-profit universities; downsizing
trends and criticisms of tenure. As these factors continue to hold, the reality
appears to be that the traditional employment model for faculty is gone.

Types of Nontenure-Track Faculty

The nontenure-track faculty profile can look very different depending on
college and university type. According to Shavers (2000), Most institutions
label all non-tenurable positions as non-tenure track, from part-time to
full-time, visiting to adjunct and temporary to contingent (p. 112). These
terms represent the names that the American professoriate has come to
accept. However, the 1995 American Association of University Professors
Policy Documents and Reports describes three categories of nontenure-track
faculty:
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION DOI: 10.1002/he

14

FACULTY AT THE MARGINS

1. Renewable appointments. Faculty are contracted for approximately one

or more years. They are told that appointments may be renewed, and
there is no limit on the number of renewals.
2. Limited renewable appointments. Faculty are told that their contract is
for one year only, but can be renewed a certain number of times,
generally between one and three years.
3. Folding chairs. This category characterizes any nontenure-track faculty
whose contract is explicitly terminal. There can be no renewal.
These categories relate to the method of appointment or nonreappointment for all types of nontenure-track faculty, yet they do not explain
the variety of roles that these faculty can hold: clinical faculty, primarily
tasked with program administration and practical education; research
faculty responsible for research productivity; and teaching-focused lecturers,
engaged in undergraduate or graduate teaching. Although the literature
treats each of these appointments together, each appointment type benefits
institutions differently and has its unique challenges and opportunities. The
real challenge is that the number of teaching appointments crowds out the
number of tenure-eligible faculty who are available to do research, teach,
and provide service to the institution. Issues of academic freedom, security,
and equity within the faculty profession are at stake.
Among the chief equity issue across all nontenure-track appointment
types is the lack of benefits and perquisites of tenure-track faculty life. Those
with the most uncertainty are those in folding chair appointments, which
are the least desirable appointments but common. When considering the
vast numbers of contingent, nontenure-eligible faculty in the United States,
those who occupy these positions are often in precarious positions and are
unwilling to cause negative attention due to their position in the institution.

Benefits of Nontenure-Track Appointments

Nontenure-track appointments have benefits not only for institutions at
large but for other stakeholders as well. This section highlights the benefits
of nontenure-track appointments of all types for tenure-line faculty, the
appointees themselves, and the institutions that hire them.
Benefits to Tenure-Track Faculty at Four-Year Institutions. Since
nontenure-track faculty are often employed to teach high-enrollment lowerdivision courses, this arrangement allows tenure-eligible faculty to teach
upper-division and graduate courses, which are often smaller and more
enjoyable to teach (Benjamin, 2003b; Brand, 2002; Cross and Goldenberg,
2002). In exchange for the lighter teaching load for these faculty, institutions are insisting on a higher level of grant activity, publications, and other
forms of creative activity to earn tenure. Often this is a bargain that tenureline faculty are willing to make, since it enables them to attend to the
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION DOI: 10.1002/he

NONTENURE-TRACK FACULTY

15

scholarly work they must produce to receive tenure and other rewards for
research (Meyer, 1998).
Benefits to Nontenure-Track Faculty Themselves. Nontenure-track
faculty also benefit from their work experience. Graduate students can gain
valuable teaching experience as independent course instructors or in
cooperation with a tenure-line faculty member. Nontenure-track faculty
who are professionals employed primarily outside the institution gain
additional income, personal enjoyment, and perhaps some prestige due to
their association with the university or college (Schuster and Finkelstein,
2006; Gappa, Austin, and Trice, 2007). Lecturers who are employed full
time gain access to fringe benefits, a stable salary, and a working situation
that in some cases offers a flexible work schedule, good working conditions,
and access to resources such as the library and other research facilities.
These lecturers may also have access to professional development funds and
activities. In addition, full-time lecturers may be considered for tenure-track
positions as they become available, though their appointment as such is not
guaranteed (Brand, 2002). Practically speaking, however, full-time lecturers
are often employed in positions where there is little chance for advancement
into tenure-track positions, given an institutional bias favoring those from
outside the institution (Gappa, Austin, and Trice, 2007; Brand, 2002). Even
without the chance for advancement, many nontenure-track teaching
faculty believe that their positions enable them to do what they love: teach.
Benefits to Institutions. The primary benefit for all institutions is the
vast economic benefit gained. All institutions hiring nontenure-track faculty
in lieu of tenure-line faculty gain through salary savings (Benjamin, 2003b;
Brand, 2002; Cross and Goldenberg, 2002). Another universal benefit is the
inherent flexibility that nontenure-track appointments offer. This flexibility
manifests itself in a number of ways, which vary depending on institution
type. Particularly when hiring graduate students and contingent, part-time
faculty, institutions gain great flexibility in both hiring decisions (meaning
whom they hire) and the duration of employment. Often these faculty members are hired on an as-needed basis, sometimes only a few days before their
course is set to begin, and with little or no preparation (Gappa, Austin, and
Trice, 2007; Benjamin, 2003b). Contingent faculty can also fill the gap for
tenure-eligible or full-time faculty who cannot fulfill their teaching duties
for a variety of reasons, including course buyouts connected with funded
research or special projects, sabbatical leaves, and family or medical leaves
of absence.
For some contingent faculty who teach one course per term, as well as
full-time lecturers, the employment guarantee is one term or, at most, one
year of stable employment, though this may vary by institution. Folding
chairs, and part-time faculty in particular instances, may be removed from
their teaching responsibilities at almost any time. Even with an oral agreement with a department chairperson or departmental administrator, these
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION DOI: 10.1002/he

16

FACULTY AT THE MARGINS

contingent faculty members can be bumped out of their assigned teaching

slot at the last moment if a tenure-eligible faculty member becomes available
to teach. Related to this institutional benefit of employment flexibility is the
ability to bring in nontenure-track faculty for particular curricular needs
and professional skills without making a long-term commitment.
Full-time nontenure-eligible faculty can often be employed in flexible
roles as well. At some universities, full-time lecturers have primary responsibility for teaching, but also carry an ancillary assignment, such as student
advising, special projects, or other administrative duties. The assumption
of these responsibilities allows tenure-eligible faculty some additional
release time to use for research or other responsibilities.
Benefits to Full-Time Faculty at Two-Year Institutions. At two-year
institutions, nontenure-track faculty are essential to the educational mission
of the institution. Given that the faculty population at these colleges is over
80 percent nontenure-track, tremendous expansions of salary budgets
would be needed to employ full-time faculty. In addition to keeping costs
down, the employment of nontenure-track faculty allows full-time faculty
at these institutions time to engage in university or departmental governance, obtain teaching load reductions, or gain time for service activities.
The literature indicates that two-year colleges often employ nontenure-track
faculty in contingent, part-time appointments in order to staff classes that
require special expertise within the pool of tenure-track faculty (Cross and
Goldenberg, 2002).
Brand (2002) and Benjamin (2003b) also note that hiring nontenuretrack faculty, especially in the role of full-time lecturer, may lower studentfaculty ratios. Brand indicates that a lower student-faculty ratio is correlated
with greater student learning outcomes, an added positive impact.

Challenges and Opportunities

In addition to these many benefits, there are common challenges and opportunities for improvement associated with using nontenure-track faculty
appointments. These have been shown to be operating to some degree
regardless of institutional type.
The literature on faculty appointments is filled with arguments against
the practice of hiring nontenure-track faculty. Benjamin (2003a, 2003b)
asserts that nontenure-track faculty, especially part-time faculty, are in
general less educationally qualified, lower the overall faculty quality, diminish
faculty involvement in student learning, and sustain a two-tiered labor market.
These are serious charges, and they bear exploring. In general, nontenuretrack faculty, particularly part-time and graduate students, are less likely to
have earned a terminal degree (Benjamin, 2003b; Baldwin and Chronister,
2001; Harper, Baldwin, Gansneder, and Chronister, 2001; Shavers, 2000).
Benjamin is strident in his argument that the terminal degree, normally the
doctorate, is the standard qualification of the faculty and must be retained
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION DOI: 10.1002/he

NONTENURE-TRACK FACULTY

17

if overall faculty quality is to be maintained.

Another consequence of an overreliance of nontenure-track faculty is
said to be a lack of focus and attention to student learning. Benjamin
(2003b) uses the National Center for Educational Statistics data from 1999 to
indicate that part-time faculty members spend less than one-half the time
that full-time faculty expend on out-of-class contact with students. Parttime faculty also spend less time in the classroom overall and less time
preparing for class than full-time faculty do (Benjamin, 2003b).
Benjamins points are well taken as general remarks, but seem to apply
mostly to faculty employed part time, regardless of institution type. He
seems not to account for the involvement and impact of nontenure-track
lecturers employed on a full-time basis. As Brand (2002) has argued, fulltime lecturers can strike a balance between the benefits of full-time faculty
on the tenure track and part-time appointments. Full-time lecturers have
primarily teaching but also service responsibilities, and thus are available
for regularly scheduled office hours for academic advising and other
activities that support student learning and engagement
Kavanaugh (2000) also argues that nontenure-track positions are
diminishing the facultys role in institutional governance. He says that these
faculty, particularly part-time and graduate students, are less likely to sustain
institutional commitment to the institution. He points out, As virtual noncitizens within the university community, part-time faculty, graduate student
employees, and non-tenure-track faculty are too often denied the right to
participate in institutional or even departmental governance (p. 27).
Nontenure-track faculty employed on a full-time basis are also disadvantaged regarding the perquisites of faculty life. They are often not paid as
much (Brand, 2002) and often enjoy less prestige than their tenure-track
colleagues (American Association of University Professors, 2006), primarily
because status is associated with research productivity. In essence, tenure-track
faculty who teach and do research believe that their research informs their
teaching and keeps them current in the field. Since lecturers often lack the
doctorate and are less able to engage in scholarly research due to time commitments and student contact hours, they are often viewed as less informed
on cutting-edge developments in their fields and consequently are less credible.
Although nontenure-track appointments now make up a majority of
the faculty, they have very little, if any, role in institutional, and often
departmental, governance (American Association of University Professors,
2006; Brand, 2002). They also often feel that the safety of academic freedom
is unavailable to them. Thus, many nontenure-track faculty are considered
by tenure-track faculty and by themselves to be second-class citizens,
whether by custom or by rule (Harper, Baldwin, Gansneder, and Chronister, 2001).
Careful consideration of the benefits and challenges of the continuing
employment of large numbers of nontenure-track faculty is a pressing task
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION DOI: 10.1002/he

18

FACULTY AT THE MARGINS

for institutions as they plan for the future. Clearly nontenure-track faculty
are here to stay, and stay in large numbers. The questions facing institutions
of higher learning should center around how to acknowledge the benefits
these appointments provide, as well as commit to working through the challenges that face this growing segment of our academy. Now is the time to
address issues of salary, job security, respect, governance, and statusissues
that will influence much about the quality of higher education in the future.
References
Albert, J. (ed.). Non-Tenure-Track Faculty Special Interest Group. Forum, 2003, 1(3),
A1-A16.
American Association of University Professors. Policy Documents and Reports. (8th ed.)
Washington, D.C.: American Association of University Professors, 1995.
American Association of University Professors. Professors of Practice. Academe, 2003,
1(9), 6061.
American Association of University Professors. Trends in Faculty Status, 19752005:
All Degree-Granting Institutions, National Totals. 2006. Retrieved Apr. 12, 2008,
from http://www.aaup.org/NR/rdonlyres/9218E731-A68E-4E98-A378-12251FFD38
02/0/Facstatustrend7505.pdf.
Baldwin, R. G., and Chronister, J. L. Teaching Without Tenure: Policies and Practices for
a New Era. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001.
Benjamin, E. How Over-Reliance on Contingent Appointments Diminishes Faculty
Involvement in Student Learning. Peer Review, 2003a, 1(5), 410.
Benjamin, E. (ed.). Exploring the Role of Contingent Instructional Staff in Undergraduate
Learning. New Dimensions in Higher Education, no. 123. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
2003b.
Brand, M. Full-Time, Non-Tenure-Track Appointments: A Case Study. Peer Review,
2002, 1(5), 1321.
Cohen, A. M. The Shaping of American Higher Education: Emergence and Growth of the
Contemporary System. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1998.
Cross, J. G., and Goldenberg, E. N. Why Hire Non-Tenure-Track Faculty? Peer Review,
2002, 1(5), 2528.
Ehrenberg, R. G., and Zhang, L. Do Tenured and Tenure-Track Faculty Matter?
Journal of Human Resources, 2005, 40, 647659.
Euben, D. Legal Contingencies for Contingent Professors. 2006. Retrieved Jan. 31,
2007, from http://chronicle.com/weekly/v52/i41/41b0080.
Gappa, J. M., Austin, A. E., and Trice, A. G. Rethinking Faculty Work: Higher Educations
Strategic Imperative. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2007.
Harper, E. P., Baldwin, R. G., Gansneder, B. G., and Chronister, J. L. Full-Time Women
Faculty off the Tenure Track: Profile and Practice. Review of Higher Education, 2001,
3(24), 237257.
Holub, T. Contract Faculty in Higher Education. 2003. Retrieved Apr. 12, 2008, from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/
1b/8f/fa.pdf.
Jacobs, F. Using Part-Time Faculty More Effectively. In D. W. Leslie (ed.), The
Growing Use of Part-Time Faculty: Understanding Causes and Effects. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1998.
Kavanaugh, P. A Vision of Democratic Governance in Higher Education: The Stakes of
Work in Academia. Social Policy, 2000, 4(30), 2430.
Meyer, K. Faculty Workload Studies: Perspectives, Needs and Future Directions. ASHEERIC Higher Education Reports, no. 26. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley, 1998.
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION DOI: 10.1002/he

NONTENURE-TRACK FACULTY

19

Rudolph, F. The American College and University: A History. Atlanta: University of

Georgia Press, 1990.
Schuster, J. H., and Finkelstein, M. J. The American Faculty: The Restructuring of Academic
Work and Careers. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006.
Shavers, F. L. Academic Ranks and Titles of Full-Time Non-Tenure-Track Faculty. In
C. A. Trower (ed.), Policies on Faculty Appointment: Standard Policies and Unusual
Arrangements. Bolton, Mass.: Anker, 2000.

KATE THEDWALL is the director of the Gateway to Graduation program and senior
lecturer in the Department of Communication Studies at Indiana University
Purdue University Indianapolis. She also is a doctoral student at the Indiana
University School of Higher Education.
NEW DIRECTIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION DOI: 10.1002/he