Underpaid and Underappreciated: A Portrait of Part-time Faculty Members

It will come as no surprise that faculty employed in part-time and adjunct positions are often underpaid and underappreciated, but a new report from the Coalition on the Academic Workforce (CAW) adds some hard numbers to back up the anecdotes. Drawing on responses from 10,331 faculty members employed in part-time teaching positions in the fall of 2010, the CAW report demonstrates the limited pay, support, and appreciation provided to most of those employed in those positions.

The results closely resemble findings from a very similar survey of history faculty conducted back in 1999 (see Robert Townsend, “Part-time Faculty Surveys Highlight Disturbing Trends”). For the history field, both surveys found that most of the respondents consider these jobs their primary employment, with only about one-quarter of those employed part-time in history reporting that they teach in these positions alongside another full-time job. But their continuing commitment to and enthusiasm for teaching is evident in the number of years the respondents spend in these positions. In history, a majority of the respondents had been employed as contingent faculty for six years or more.

But the average payment per course remains relatively small–only $2,700 in fall 2010, with history faculty in these positions earning slightly below the average at $2,600. And the survey respondents indicated that they generally did not receive pay increases for working in a position for multiple years—indicating there is little premium for experience in these positions.

Regardless of their relationship to the work, it is notable that large portions of the respondents in all the disciplines indicated income from these positions was either “essential” or “very important” to their livelihood. In history, 72 percent of the faculty members employed part time emphasized how important this stream of income was to their finances.

The obvious importance of contingent faculty to the functioning of our institutions of higher education is not accompanied by commensurate levels of support from their institutions. The responses to some of the workplace support questions, for instance, provide additional data about how the different types of contingent faculty fit into the larger ecosystem of their departments. Respondents reported that they are

  • far less likely to have office space or computer support than their full-time colleagues;
  • rarely compensated for work outside the classroom that was part of the teacher’s academic functions; and
  • generally not supported in their efforts to maintain a program of productive research, even at doctoral institutions.

The responses on benefits highlight how institutions devalue this type of employment, and how the system in general is premised on these part-time employees having other full- or part-time jobs. Only 22.6 percent of the part-time faculty receive their health care benefits from their academic employer, while 54.8 percent were relying on another source for their health care—either a spouse or another employer. That leaves over a quarter of the part-time faculty without any reported source for health insurance.

There is a similar trend in the area of retirement benefits. Although twice as many of the respondents employed part time reported that they draw (or will draw) retirement benefits from their academic employers (a total of 41.4 percent), another 34.1 percent indicated that they have to rely on another employer for their retirement benefits.

The most important variable seemed to be the employing institution type, as institutions that employ higher proportions of a particular type of contingent employee seemed to do a slightly better job in supporting their work. For instance, when broken out by institutional types, it appears that faculty members employed at colleges conferring associate’s degrees are a bit more likely to be paid for service beyond the classroom—12.0 percent of the respondents with employment in those institutions reported payment for department meetings, and 15.7 reported compensation for office hours. This compared to compensation levels in the low single digits for faculty members employed elsewhere. 

Two-year colleges also seem a bit more likely to offer regular salary increases and job security to part-time employees who stay over an extended period of time. However, respondents from four-year institutions indicated they were a bit more generous in offering support for research grants, but not nearly as much as one might have guessed given the relative difference in the missions of two- and four-year institutions.

The other variable that showed some notable differences was on the issue of union representation, which also seemed to have an effect on the work conditions for contingent faculty members. The presence of union collective bargaining agreements increased the likelihood of regular salary increases and job security after extended employment. Among those employed part time, only 12.1 percent of the respondents at nonunion institutions reported regular salary increases, as compared to 33.9 percent of the faculty with union representation. And where only 3.9 percent of the respondents at nonunion schools reported job security for extended service, 19.4 percent at unionized institutions reported some sense of security. Employees at unionized institutions were also twice as likely to indicate they receive payment for cancelled classes, office hours, and department meetings, but in all cases that was a difference between percentages in the single digits compared to the low to mid-teens.

These data are striking, but there’s even more emotional impact contained in the Wordle text cloud used as visual at the front of the report (and in this post). It depicts the responses to an open question about the biggest challenges they face as contingent faculty. Not surprisingly, “job,” “security,” and “time” all stand out. But the most important word here is “lack”—as it’s the absence of so many of these things that looms large. The dominance of the word “faculty” points to one of the largest recurring concerns from respondents, the perceived lack of collegiality and respect from many of their colleagues.

In the end, the data allow us to see that the problems of contingent faculty employment extend beyond the basic questions of dollars and benefits, and provide a more holistic view of the lives and livelihood of faculty employed in these positions.

The September issue of Perspectives on History will have a detailed report covering the full range of contingent faculty employed at American colleges and universities (the survey also obtained information from graduate students employed in teaching capacities, postdoctoral students in teaching positions, college and university employees employed in research capacities, and faculty employed full time but off the tenure track), with much greater depth on the responses from historians.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Digg thisShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someonePrint this pagePin on PinterestShare on RedditShare on Tumblr

Back to Top

Leave a Reply

Comment

* Required field

  1. Lisa Kazmier

    I’d say the lecturer as FT is also under-appreciated. I was treated like dirt by the end of my time versus the beginning. What changed? I had the audacity to apply for their tenure track opening and was not taken very seriously, despite having a publication come out that spring. They hired a recent PhD who was only having an article under consideration. They got rid of me by finding ways to slam my teaching quite unfairly. Frankly, I should have sued but I wanted to get away from them versus keep my job (they rescinded the last year of my alleged 3 year term over “budget cuts”—guess they needed my salary for the new hire).

    Reply