Running head: THE RISE OF CONTINGENT FACULTY 1

The Rise of Contingent Faculty in Higher Education

Johanna Riemen

George Mason University

THE RISE OF CONTINGENT FACULTY 2

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the rise of contingent faculty in higher education.

The rise is addressed in relationship to the decreased funding institutions of higher education

receive from both state and federal governments. Problems with increasing the number of

contingent faculty and decreasing tenure-track faculty include student learning, unequal pay, and

the jeopardy of academic freedom. For these reasons, the plight of contingent faculty is an issue

that should continue to be studied and addressed.

THE RISE OF CONTINGENT FACULTY 3

There are many terms used to identify contingent faculty in institutions of higher

education including adjuncts, non-tenure track faculty, part-time faculty, and teaching assistants.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the rise of contingent faculty along with the decrease of

tenure-track faculty in higher education. In particular, I will explore the reason behind the trend

as well as its impact on both contingent faculty and students. The effects of the trend must be

considered in institutional practices, decision-making, and policy implementation as both

students and contingent faculty are negatively affected.

According to the American Association of University Professors (2017), tenure-track

faculty made up 45% of the workforce in 1975. Of the remaining, 55% were contingent faculty

with the breakdown as follows: 10% were full-time non-tenure track faculty, 24% were

adjuncts, and 21% were graduate assistants. In 1995, the number of contingent faculty rose to

66% and to 70% in 2015. If the trend continues, the number of contingent faculty will be

approximately 87% in 2055. Thus, the use of contingent faculty is a topic that will continue to

remain relevant for institutions of higher education.

With the decrease in state and federal funding, increasing the number of contingent

faculty in place of tenured or tenure-track faculty would appear to make economic sense for

institutions of higher education. Jeager and Eagen (2011) report that contingent faculty are

cheaper to employ than tenure-track faculty and provide the institutions with greater flexibility

(p. 508). Further, Leslie Hough (2007) notes that tenured faculty also benefit from the use of

contingents by reducing their teaching loads especially for introductory courses (p. 15).

However, there are other variables to consider when evaluating the increased use of contingent

faculty including their quality of life and their impact on student learning.
THE RISE OF CONTINGENT FACULTY 4

Jaeger and Eagan (2011) present the social and economic benefits of higher education

including higher salary potential for graduates and a higher tax base for the community (p. 508).

For this reason, the authors state that retention is a common agenda for colleges and universities

but particularly for state institutions (Jaeger & Egan, 2011, p. 508). However, while the benefits

of obtaining a college degree are well documented, institutions of higher education continue to

not receive ample funding that would allow for more tenure-track faculty (Jaeger & Eagan, 2011,

p. 508).

Several studies report on the decrease in student and faculty interaction that has resulted

from the rise of contingent faculty. In their study, Jaeger and Eagan (2011) examine if the cost

savings strategy of employing contingent faculty impacted the retention rates of first year

undergraduate and graduate students in six 4-year state colleges and universities as it results in

decreased meaningful interaction with students (p. 509). Their results show a statistically

significant inverse relationship between retention and exposure to both full-time and part-time

contingent faculty (Jaeger & Eagan, 2011, p. 528). Doctoral students were the anomaly

experiencing a positive relationship in retention (Jaeger & Egan, 2011, p. 529). Baldwin and

Wawryzynski (2011) present data that parallels Jaegers and Eagans findings. In their study on

the teaching styles of contingent and tenure-track faculty, they discovered that part-time

contingent faculty were the least likely to communicate with their students via email or websites

in comparison to full-time tenure-track and full-time non-tenure track faculty (Baldwin &

Wawryzynski, 2011, p. 1494). Kezar, Chambers, and Burkhardt (2005) also support the findings

of decreased interaction by noting that student advising has declined with the rise of contingent

faculty (p. 33).

THE RISE OF CONTINGENT FACULTY 5

Student learning is also negatively impacted by the teaching methods of contingent

faculty. Of all faculty types, part-time contingent faculty are the least likely to employ learning-

centered strategies in teaching (Baldwin & Wawryzynski, 2011, p. 1494). Additionally, they are

less likely to use service learning methods and culturally sensitive teaching techniques (Kezar,

2012, p. 8).

The decrease in opportunity for tenure-track professorship has implications for the

contingent faculty hired. Monks (2007) reports that part-time contingent, full-time contingent,

and tenure-track faculty spend a similar portion of their time on teaching (p. 490). However,

tenure-track faculty spend more than twice the amount of time on research as full-time

contingent faculty and more than three times the amount of time as part-time contingent faculty

(Monks, 2007, p. 490). Meanwhile, contingent faculty spend roughly three times as much time

on other activities, presumably non-work related (Monks, 2007, p. 490). The data reported from

1999 states that tenure-track faculty earned $26.11 per hour, full-time non-tenure track faculty

earned $19.11 per hour, and part-time non-tenure track faculty earned $15.68 per hour (Monks,

2007, p. 492). This data only accounts for salary and does not account for benefits. When

comparing rates for all work activities, full-time tenure-track faculty earned $26.48 per hour,

full-time non-tenure-track faculty earned the least at $19.11 per hour, and part-time non-tenure-

track faculty earned $23.67 per hour (Monks, 2007, p. 492). From all angles, contingent faculty

earn less per hour than tenure-track faculty.

Cadambi Daniel (2016) paints a particularly dismal view of contingent faculty noting

their low pay, minimal benefits, and no job security (p. 45) as well as their lack of research

opportunity (p. 46). He states that it will take decades to restore the prestige and stability of the

collegiate teaching profession which has suffered from this trend (Cadambi Daniel, 2016, p. 45).
THE RISE OF CONTINGENT FACULTY 6

To fight these conditions, contingent faculty, particularly from private institutions, are steadily

unionizing. However, faculty in right-to-work states are prohibited from unionizing due to a

Supreme Court ruling (Cadambi Daniel, 2016, p. 46). Cadambi Daniel (2016) argues the

importance of unionizing by stating that academic freedom is threatened as contingent faculty

lack the opportunity to conduct research and fear repercussion (p. 47). Through the Service

Employees International Union, contingent faculty are writing op-ed pieces, demanding $15,000

per course taught, and have organized an Adjunct Walkout Day (Cadambi Daniel, 2016, p. 49).

Despite these efforts, the battle of contingent faculty faces exceptional challenges as they lack

federal protection under the Fair Labor Standards Act which exempts Learned Professionals

from protection (Cadambi Daniel, 2016, p. 50).

The problems arising from the increase in contingent faculty are not restricted to the

United States. Dobbie and Robinson (2008) describe a similar situation in Canada characterized

by low wages, little job security, and lack of benefits for its growing number of contingent

faculty (p. 118). Contingent faculty in Canada have also responded to these conditions through

unionization. The authors state that, despite the heavy efforts of unionization in Canada, it has,

in fact, not decreased the reliance of higher education institutions on contingent faculty (Dobbie

& Robinson, 2008, p. 119). The authors determine that tenure-track faculty unions fuel the rise

of contingent faculty since they do not focus on them as it makes the tenured and tenure-track

faculty less appealable to administrators (Dobbie & Robinson, 2008, p. 135). However,

institutions allowing for both contingent and tenure-track faculty unions actually show a decrease

in dependency on contingent faculty. The authors doubt that higher education will ever return to

majority tenure and tenure-track faculty; however, they urge for all faculty, regardless of
THE RISE OF CONTINGENT FACULTY 7

employment status, to fight for academic freedom and high quality education (Dobbie &

Robinson, 2008, p. 137).

While the literature on contingent faculty paints a negative picture, there is research

highlighting cultures where contingent faculty thrive. Kezar (2013) writes of the inclusive

departmental culture which values and respects contingent faculty viewing them as colleagues

(p. 172). In the inclusive culture, contingent faculty participate in faculty governance, make

decisions impacting curriculum, and attend departmental meetings and events (Kezar, 2013, p.

172). Professional development and a shared office space are also available (Kezar, 2013, p.

172). Department chairs fight to increase contingent faculty earnings and schedule their courses

in advance so the faculty have time to prepare (Kezar, 2013, p. 172-173). Kezar (2013) also

found success in departments with a learning culture (p. 174). In the learning culture, all faculty

are respected regardless of status (Kezar, 2013, p. 174). Contingent faculty have the opportunity

to participate in governance and departmental meetings (Kezar, 2013, p. 175). Kezar discovered

that, in the learning culture, contingent faculty were willing to interact with and advise students

during unpaid office hours (Kezar, 2013, p. 175). She discovered that the learning culture

instituted polices specifically aimed at benefiting student learning (Kezar, 2013, p. 175). To

achieve this objective, contingent faculty receive professional development, are mentored, have

orientation, and have substantial impact on the curriculum (Kezar, 2013, p. 175).

The research on the rise of contingent faculty is largely one sided. What is not included

are any personal benefits contingent faculty may receive. Benefits to consider are work

experience gained, an increased opportunity for networking, and bringing real world experience

into the classroom. The study on the rise of contingent faculty may benefit from considering

additional perspectives.
THE RISE OF CONTINGENT FACULTY 8

It is predominate in the literature on higher education that institutions continue to adapt

and respond to decreasing federal and state funding. Increasing the number of contingent faculty

may not be the answer to higher educations economic difficulties as there are negative

consequences for both the students and faculty. Nonetheless, the plight of contingent faculty is a

serious and relevant concern that continues to be studied in academia.

THE RISE OF CONTINGENT FACULTY 9

References
Baldwin, R. G., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2011). Contingent Faculty as Teachers: What We Know;
What We Need to Know. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(11), 14851509.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764211409194

Cadambi Daniel, M. (2016). Contingent Faculty of the World Unite! Organizing to Resist the
Corporatization of Higher Education. New Labor Forum (Sage Publications Inc.), 25(1),
4451. https://doi.org/10.1177/1095796015620408

Dobbie, D., & Robinson, I. (2008). Reorganizing Higher Education in the United States and
Canada: The Erosion of Tenure and the Unionization of Contingent Faculty. Labor
Studies Journal, 33(2), 117140. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160449X07301241

Hough, L. (2003). Higher Education and Its Contingent Faculty of the Future. WorkingUSA,
6(4), 1215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-4580.2003.00012.x

Jaeger, A. J., & Eagan, M. K. (2011). Examining Retention and Contingent Faculty Use in a
State System of Public Higher Education. Educational Policy, 25(3), 507537.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904810361723

Kezar, A., Chambers, A. C., & Burkhardt, J. C. (Eds.). (2005). Higher Education for the Public
Good: Emerging Voices from a National Movement (1 edition). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Kezar, A. (2013). Departmental Cultures and Non-Tenure-Track Faculty: Willingness, Capacity,

and Opportunity to Perform at Four-Year Institutions. Journal of Higher Education,
84(2), 153188.
http://mutex.gmu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=
ehh&AN=85745804&site=ehost-live

Kezar, A. (2012). Spanning the Great Divide Between Tenure-Track and Non-Tenure-Track
Faculty. Change, 44(6), 613. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2012.728949

Monks, J. (2007). The Relative Earnings of Contingent Faculty in Higher Education. Journal of
Labor Research, 28(3), 487501.
http://mutex.gmu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=
eoh&AN=0953518&site=ehost-live

American Association of University Professors. (2017). Trends in The Academic Labor Force,
1975-2015 [Data file]. Retrieved from
https://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/Academic%20Labor%20Force%20Trends%2019
75-2015.pdf