THE ROLE OF DEPARTMENT CHAIR AND FULL-TIME NON-TENURE-TRACK FACULTY POLICIES, PRACTICES, AND WORK CULTURES By Shauna Williams A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education - Doctor of Philosophy 2022 ABSTRACT THE ROLE OF DEPARTMENT CHAIR AND FULL-TIME NON-TENURE-TRACK FACULTY POLICIES, PRACTICES, AND WORK CULTURES By Shauna Williams Change in higher education is inevitable (Wergin, 2007). One prominent change is related to faculty composition. Studies have shown increased hiring of full-time non-tenure-track faculty compared to tenure-track faculty (AAUP, 2018; National Center on Educational Statistics, 2018). The department chair plays a critical role in the lives of non-tenure-track faculty. The chair can foster collaboration, navigate tensions, advance improvements, and directly impact change efforts in an academic department. The department chair may also influence the work environment and culture for faculty – a culture that may result in non-tenure track faculty feeling marginalized, disconnected, like second-class citizens, devalued, and disenfranchised (Haviland, Alleman, & Allen, 2017). Through qualitative interviews with department chairs and faculty, this study sought to answer the question of, what role does the department chair play regarding full-time non-tenure- track faculty policies, practices, and work cultures? The findings reveal that department chairs play an essential role in leading efforts to revise policies and organizational structures in ways that support and include non-tenure-track faculty. The department chair is positioned to valorize the work of non-tenure-track faculty through a commitment to collegiality, collaborative practices, and caring communities. Department chairs, however, are often unable to act alone and may have limited power to change policies and practices for non-tenure-track faculty. Collective leadership efforts, like working across units and ranks, via task forces, and through the inclusion of unions, may be necessary strategies for bringing needed change to non-tenure-track faculty policies, practices, and cultures. Copyright by SHAUNA WILLIAMS 2022 This is dedicated to my family. To my husband, Jim, who has been a constant source of encouragement. To my children, Calli, Tyler, and Campbelle, who are a joy and inspiration. Willow and Zinnia-Nani loves you! To my parents and extended family who have always believed in me. We did it! v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to acknowledge and express my deep appreciation to my wonderful professors who invested in me. Most especially, I would like to thank my advisor Dr. John Dirkx and my dissertation committee Dr. Marilyn Amey, Dr. Ann Austin, and Dr. Kimberly Kelly. Thank you for guiding me through this journey and the great patience shown along the way. I would also like to acknowledge and thank the participants who generously gave of their time. Without their willingness to participate this study would not have been possible. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... xii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1 Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................................... 3 Research Questions ......................................................................................................................... 3 Overarching Research Question ......................................................................................... 4 Preview of Theoretical Framework ................................................................................................ 4 Overview of Methodology and Design ........................................................................................... 5 Rationale for Design ........................................................................................................... 5 Significance of the Study ................................................................................................................ 5 Overview of Remaining Chapters ................................................................................................... 7 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................. 9 Higher Education in a Time of Change .......................................................................................... 9 Faculty Roles and Work................................................................................................................ 12 The Faculty ....................................................................................................................... 13 Tenure-Track Faculty................................................................................................... 14 Non-Tenure-Ttrack Faculty (full-time) ........................................................................ 15 Recent Scholarship on Full-Time Non-Tenure-Track Faculty (2006-2018)................ 17 Commitment. ........................................................................................................... 18 Collegiality. ............................................................................................................. 20 Community .............................................................................................................. 23 Connection and Empowerment ............................................................................... 25 Summary of Scholarship on Faculty Roles and Work .................................................................. 26 Department Chairs ........................................................................................................................ 27 Challenges ......................................................................................................................... 29 Leadership Development .............................................................................................. 29 Balancing Expectations ................................................................................................ 31 Chair as influencer, advocate, change agent ........................................................... 32 Chair as connector ................................................................................................... 34 Change Theories ........................................................................................................................... 37 Change .............................................................................................................................. 37 Institutional Change Theory (ICT) ................................................................................... 39 Role of Social Change Agent ............................................................................................ 40 Linking the Theories ......................................................................................................... 43 Chapter Two Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 45 CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHOD AND DESIGN ..................................................... 48 Research Design............................................................................................................................ 49 Research Context .............................................................................................................. 50 vii The University .............................................................................................................. 50 The College .................................................................................................................. 51 Departments ................................................................................................................. 51 Faculty.......................................................................................................................... 53 Unions 54 Participants ........................................................................................................................ 55 Participant Solicitation ................................................................................................ 57 Demographics of Participants ..................................................................................... 58 Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 58 Interviews ..................................................................................................................... 59 Pilot Test ...................................................................................................................... 60 Reflective Memos ......................................................................................................... 60 Institutional Documents ............................................................................................... 60 Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 61 Trustworthiness ................................................................................................................. 61 Positionality ...................................................................................................................... 62 Chapter Three Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 63 CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS .................................................................................................... 64 Documents ........................................................................................................................ 65 Bylaws. ......................................................................................................................... 66 The College ............................................................................................................. 66 Themes .............................................................................................................................. 67 Theme 1: Call for Clarity and Transparency............................................................... 68 FTNTTF Roles and Respect .................................................................................... 68 FTNTTF Policies and Practices .............................................................................. 68 FTNTTF Inequities ................................................................................................. 69 Theme 2: Commitment to Community .......................................................................... 69 Theme 3: Change Opportunities, Costs, and Challenges ............................................ 70 Systemic Structures and Traditions ......................................................................... 71 Resources ................................................................................................................ 71 Interpersonal Dynamics ........................................................................................... 72 Department One ................................................................................................................ 72 Department One Bylaws .............................................................................................. 73 Department One Chair ................................................................................................. 75 Other Departmental Leaders ................................................................................... 75 Chair Advisory Committee ........................................................................................... 76 Department One Themes .............................................................................................. 76 Theme 1: Call for Clarity and Transparency ........................................................... 77 FTNTTF Roles and Respect................................................................................ 77 FTNTTF Policies and Practices ......................................................................... 77 FTNTTF Inequities ............................................................................................. 79 Theme 2: Commitment to Community ................................................................... 81 Theme 3: Change Opportunities, Costs, and Challenges ........................................ 84 Systemic Structures and Traditions .................................................................... 84 Resources……… ........................................................................................ …….85 viii Interpersonal Dynamics ..................................................................................... 86 Department One Summary ........................................................................................... 87 Department Two ............................................................................................................... 88 Department Two Bylaws .............................................................................................. 88 Department Two Chair ................................................................................................ 90 Chair Advisory Committee ........................................................................................... 91 Department Two Themes ............................................................................................. 91 Theme 1: Call for Clarity and Transparency ........................................................... 91 FTNTTF Roles and Respect................................................................................ 91 FTNTTF Policies and Procedures...................................................................... 92 FTNTTF Inequities ............................................................................................. 94 Theme 2: Commitment to Community ................................................................... 97 Theme 3: Change Opportunities, Costs, and Challenges ........................................ 99 Systemic Structures and Traditions .................................................................... 99 Resources……… ............................................................................................... 100 Interpersonal Dynamics ................................................................................... 101 Department Two Summary......................................................................................... 103 Department Three ........................................................................................................... 104 Department Three Bylaws .......................................................................................... 105 Department Three Chair ............................................................................................ 106 Other Department Leadership ............................................................................... 106 Chair Advisory Committee ......................................................................................... 107 Department Three Themes ......................................................................................... 107 Theme 1: Call for Clarity and Transparency ......................................................... 107 FTNTTF Roles and Respect.............................................................................. 107 FTNTTF Policies and Procedures.................................................................... 109 FTNTTF Inequities ........................................................................................... 110 Theme 2: Commitment to Community ................................................................. 112 Theme 3: Change Opportunities, Costs, and Challenges ...................................... 114 Systemic Structures and Traditions .................................................................. 115 Resources……… ............................................................................................... 116 Interpersonal Dynamics ................................................................................... 116 Department Three Summary ...................................................................................... 118 College Task Force(s) ..................................................................................................... 119 The Special Task Force .............................................................................................. 121 Research Questions ......................................................................................................... 125 Unanticipated Findings ................................................................................................... 135 Summary of Findings ...................................................................................................... 137 CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION ............................................................................................... 139 Research Question(s) ...................................................................................................... 139 The Role of Chairs Regarding FTNTTF ......................................................................... 141 The Chair’s Role and Influence ................................................................................. 141 FTNTTF Work, Needs, and Expectations .................................................................. 145 Change Efforts ........................................................................................................... 148 Summary: Chairs, FTTNF, and Change ......................................................................... 150 ix Theoretical Implications ................................................................................................. 151 Social Change Leadership Theory ............................................................................. 151 Institutional Change Theory ...................................................................................... 155 Summary of Theoretical Implications ............................................................................ 158 Practical Implications...................................................................................................... 158 Collective and Collaborative Approaches ................................................................. 158 Faculty Workload ....................................................................................................... 160 Communication Strategies ......................................................................................... 162 Community ................................................................................................................. 163 Summary of Practical Implications ................................................................................. 164 Future Research .............................................................................................................. 165 Diversity and Equity................................................................................................... 165 Inclusion ..................................................................................................................... 166 Shared-Governance.................................................................................................... 166 Well-Being .................................................................................................................. 167 Impact on Students ..................................................................................................... 168 Theoretical Approaches ............................................................................................. 168 Summary of Future Research.......................................................................................... 169 Limitations ...................................................................................................................... 170 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 170 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................ 173 APPENDIX A: Full-Time Non-Tenure-Track Faculty Comparisons ...................................... 174 APPENDIX B: Demographics and Characteristics of the 16 Faculty Participants ................... 175 APPENDIX C: Consent Forms ................................................................................................. 176 APPENDIX D: Demographic Questionnaire ............................................................................ 182 APPENDIX E: Interview Questions .......................................................................................... 183 APPENDIX F: Definitions ........................................................................................................ 194 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 195 x LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Demographics and Characteristics of the 16 Faculty Participants…………..………175 xi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Full-Time Non-Tenure-Track Faculty Comparisons……………………..…....…….174 xii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION It is generally regarded that, in higher education, faculty are among an institution’s most valuable assets but there is vigorous debate over who constitutes “faculty” (Alleman et al., 2017; Bowden & Gonzalez, 2012; Bowen & Tobin, 2015; Gappa, et al., 2007; Kezar & Maxey, 2014). Traditionally, faculty have performed their work within a hierarchical “two-tier” system: the upper-tier is reserved for full-time tenure-track faculty, and the lower-tier is comprised of all non-tenure track faculty (Baldwin & Chronister, 2001; Gappa & Lesley, 1993; Hoeller, 2014; Schuster & Finkelstein, 2006). While work cultures vary by discipline, department, institution and other variables (Austin, 1996), the two-tier system has been a long-standing descriptor of faculty ranks and organizational structure within higher education in the United States. The nature of who constitutes faculty in higher education is changing. The majority of faculty employed at most U.S. colleges and universities are non-tenure-track and they outnumber tenure-track (TT) nearly four to one (Baldwin & Chronister, 2001; Flaherty, 2013; Finkelstein & Schuster, 2001; Gappa, 2008; Kezar & Maxey, 2014; Reevy & Deason, 2014). In 2016 alone, higher education institutions hired 52,376 full-time academicians, of which 59 percent were full- time non-tenure-track (FTNTTF) and 41 percent were full-time tenure-track (AAUP, 2018; National Center on Educational Statistics, 2018). Data suggest FTNTTF roles and work mirror that of tenure-track faculty (Baldwin & Chronister, 2001; Bland, et al., 2006; Ott & Cisneros, 2015) and require the same basic elements to support their needs such as respect, a collegial work environment and community, employment equity, balance and flexibility, and professional growth opportunities (Gappa, Austin & Trice, 2007). However, unlike their tenure-track colleagues, FTNTTF often perform their work without needed support (Alleman & Haviland, 2017; Kezar & Sam, 2010) creating 1 unstable, negative work environments. These environments may cause FTNTTF to feel unsupported, vulnerable, marginalized, and disenfranchised (Alleman & Haviland, 2017; Kezar, 2013b; Kezar & Maxey, 2014; Levin & Shafer, 2011; O’Meara, et al., 2003; Ott & Cisneros, 2015). Furthermore, not attending to the socio-emotional needs of faculty increases depression, stress, and anxiety (Reevy & Deason, 2014), negatively affecting both faculty well-being and student learning (Kezar, 2012b). In spite of isolated attempts towards more inclusive and supportive practices for FTNTTF, change across the board has not been attained. Colleges and universities continue to be challenged with forming realignment strategies to address FTNTTF needs as well as implementing revised policies and practices (Kezar & Maxey, 2014; Morrison, 2008; Pasque & Carducci, 2015). What is needed to bring about deep cultural change, the type of change being suggested due to the increased hiring of FTNTTF? Interestingly, studies indicate that decisions made at the local level (i.e., department) influence FTNTTF the most (Kezar, 2012b; Quinn, 2007; Rhoades & Maitland, 2008). In fact, many scholars portray the department chair as a change agent best positioned to improve conditions at their institutions (Amey, 2010; Goniam, 2016; Kezar, 2012b; Kezar 2013a; Kezar & Lester, 2009; Morris & Miller, 2008; Morrison, 2008; Quinn, 2007; Rhoades & Maitland, 2008; Wergin, 2007). The department chair position has important situational or relational influence vertically between higher administrative leaders and faculty, and horizontally across faculty type within their unit and across units (Rosser, 2000). The chair can influence dialogue on issues and help convene key people to address pressing issues. The chair can influence the hiring and review of faculty in their department, especially for FTNTTF (Baldwin & Chronister, 2001; Quinn, 2007). The chair can influence change that affects culture and can advocate on the behalf of others who may be marginalized and/or 2 disenfranchised by outdated and/or inadequate work structures, systems, and cultures (Kezar, 2013a; Miller & Morris, 2008). However, while chairs are reported to have the capacity to influence and bring about change, the unique needs of FTNTTF may be unknown and unmet. Purpose of the Study The increased hiring of FTNTTF within higher education beckons a review of policies, practices, and work cultures in order to ensure that this growing group of faculty is supported and included within the profession, and in ways through which their institutions convey commitment to their well-being as well as student learning. Department chairs are uniquely positioned to lead in advancing efforts that address this need. The purpose of this study is to explore how the role of department chair influences policy, practice, and cultural changes regarding full-time non-tenure track faculty work in higher education. Specifically, this research will answer the following research questions. Research Questions Given that department chairs influence full-time non-tenure track faculty policies, practices, and work cultures, this study explores their role more closely by posing questions about how chairs (locally) navigate the increased hiring of FTNTTF in higher education. Prior research indicates FTNTTF express attention and action is needed in four key areas: collegial work cultures, inclusive shared-governance policies and practices, assessment of policies and practices, and professional development. Therefore, I pose one overarching question to this study, in conjunction with four specific sub-questions to further examine the role of department chair regarding FTNTTF needs. 3 Overarching Research Question The overarching research question was, what role does the department chair play regarding FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures? The sub-questions explored in this study included: 1. What role does the department chair play in the processes or approaches employed at the department level in developing a collegial culture regarding FTNTTF? 2. What role does the department chair play in the processes or approaches employed at the department level in enacting shared-governance practices and policies (e.g., departmental, college, institutional levels) regarding FTNTTF? 3. What role does the department chair play in the processes or approaches employed at the department level regarding the development and implementation of assessment of policies and practices (e.g., departmental, college, institutional levels) related to FTNTTF? 4. What role does the department chair play in the processes or approaches employed at the department level related to professional development for FTNTTF? Preview of Theoretical Framework The theoretical framework that informed this study centers around the role of departmental chair as a change agent that is positioned to address working conditions for FTNTTF. Specifically, I have selected institutional change theory and the social change model of leadership theory to guide the exploration of this research that examines how the role of department chair influences FTNTTF policies, practices, and cultures. These theories will help to 4 frame how chairs as mid-level administrative leaders in higher education navigate and influence deep organizational and cultural change through their relationships and interactions with others in response to the increased hiring of FTNTTF and their unique needs. Overview of Methodology and Design In this qualitative study I offer a constructivist, interpretive analysis of the data aimed at providing insights into how the role of department chair influences FTNTTF policies and practices at universities where there are no faculty unions. From careful analysis of collected surveys, semi-structured interviews, document analysis, and reflection, this study makes sense of how department chairs navigate their relationships and interactions with others in addressing policy, practice, and culture changes in response to increased hiring of FTNTTF. Rationale for Design By collecting data from department chairs, we can better understand how their role and work as mid-level administrators at institutions without a faculty union affects the realignment of FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures. We can also explore what challenges are most pressing and why. From these data, together with a review of faculty handbooks and institutional documents, we can also learn how department chairs navigate the change in faculty, the reasons behind their decision-making processes, and the resulting outcomes of the decisions. Furthermore, we can gain a deeper understanding of how organizational structures and systems work to either support or impede FTNTTF work and how department chairs might use their relationships (vertically and horizontally) to influence change. Significance of the Study Change in higher education is inevitable (Wergin, 2007). Having a leader in the right place at the right time (Shapiro, 2005) is needed to help individuals, groups, and/or organizations 5 to navigate and focus their efforts together towards change (Watt, 2009). Scholars of higher education leadership agree that deep, cultural changes often embedded in matters of policy, practice, and culture require the collaboration of administration and faculty (Austin, 1996; Bowen & Tobin, 2015; Kezar, 2001; Schein, 2003); and the chair is presented as one who can foster collaboration, navigate tensions, advance improvements, and create a culture that facilitates change (Kezar & Maxey, 2015; Quinn, 2007). Thus, chairs are presented as central figures for advocating and influencing issues regarding FTNTTF, through collaborative efforts in partnership with others, working across organizational structures (horizontal and vertical), and driven by a commitment to the mission of their university and the academy. Faculty are among an institution’s greatest assets. Although thirty percent of faculty in higher education are FTNTTF who regularly offer quality teaching to a large number of students, they often remain detached, disconnected, and marginalized (Allen & Haviland, 2016; Figlio et al., 2013). Gappa and Austin (2010) state, “Ensuring that faculty members are satisfied and motivated by their work and work environment is critically important to every institution’s quality and well-being” (p. 3). These authors go on to add that, “Today’s challenge is to provide an environment where, regardless of appointment type or demographics, all faculty members are treated fairly, have opportunity to grow professionally, and are respected members of their academic communities” (p. 7). When this type of environment does not exist, faculty cannot work at their highest level, ultimately weakening student learning and diminishing the success of their institution (Kezar & Gehrke, 2016). In order for faculty, students, and institutions to be successful, department chairs are pivotal in reviewing the practices, policies, and work cultures regarding FTNTTF. Department chairs are central to addressing FTNTTF work environments to ensure the highest quality of teaching is being offered and supported. 6 In this context, the chair can be viewed as having the most influence at the local level to bring about necessary and important changes that build stronger departments, programs, and institutions. Ultimately, when chairs support FTNTTF, students are supported. When students are supported and receive quality teaching, retention and graduation rates increase, and institutions are successful in fulfilling their mission statements. And when higher education institutions are successful, society benefits because of strong human capital and an improved workforce (Gappa & Austin, 2010; Kezar, 2018a). Given the scholarship on the potential influence of the department chair, an in-depth examination of their role is central. Furthermore, by assessing the chair’s influence on realignment of FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures we can better understand the change process in higher education. For example, how change regarding FTNTTF work is mobilized and implemented. Finally, very few studies exist that examine FTNTTF work specifically, which I explain further in the literature review. Therefore, a review of policies and practices that equally support and include FTNTTF is needed to ensure their success and well- being, as well as to ensure student learning. In sum, an examination of departments chairs’ influence on the realignment and implementation of important policies and practices that support FTNTTF work is merited. Overview of Remaining Chapters In the following chapters I develop a more detailed and in-depth rationale for this study. In Chapter 2 a review of the literature on faculty describes the current status of who constitutes faculty, faculty work, and the need for an examination of policies and practices that support the unique needs of FTNTTF. This is followed by a review of scholarship on the important role of department chair as change agent, organizational change, and more detailed information about 7 the theories framing this study. In Chapter 3, I discuss in detail the methodology and design used for data collection and analysis. The concluding chapters will describe the findings of the study and discuss the implications for practice, as well as future research. 8 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW The composition of faculty in higher education has changed. Fifty years ago, 80 percent of faculty were tenure-track and 20 percent were non-tenure-track. Today, 30 percent are tenure- track faculty and 70 percent are non-tenured-track faculty outnumbering tenure-track nearly four to one (Baldwin & Chronister, 2001; Flaherty, 2013; Gappa, 2008; Kezar & Maxey, 2014; Reevy & Deason, 2014). From 2008-2012, the number of full-time faculty increased by 7 percent from 2011-2016 while the number of part-time hires decreased by 4 percent over the same time period. Likewise, the number of full-time non-tenure-track faculty increased by 11 percent whereas the number of tenure-track faculty increased by only 1 percent (National Center on Educational Statistics, 2018). In 2016 alone, higher education institutions hired 52,376 full-time faculty, of which 59 percent were full-time non-tenure-track and 41 percent were full-time tenure-track (AAUP, 2018; NCES, 2018). Higher Education in a Time of Change Contemporary debate about who constitutes faculty in higher education indicates change in the academy. All parties have deeply held values, beliefs and expectations (Lattuca & Stark, 2009). Change of any type can stir feelings of unrest or uneasiness because the ‘new’ might be unknown or different, or produce a fear of failure (Watt, 2009). For faculty and administrators facing deep, social changes in their institution and/or profession, it would be expected that a sense of question or challenge to the existing attitudes and values such as division in rank, status, labor, and enfranchisement would produce uncertainty, hesitation, and resistance by some. The once stable work environment in higher education appears ambiguous, and tensions arise between those who desire things to remain the same and those seeking change (Fullan, 2001). Department chairs often are asked to lead in new, unknown, and even rocky waters (Roper & 9 Deal, 2010). While change can produce uncertainty for a time, “using outdated strategies can seriously affect the efficiency, morale, and survival of the campus” (Kezar, 1998, p. 70). With the increased hiring of FTNTTF, administrators are having to re-examine organizational and cultural structures, policies, and practices. Such a change in the composition of the academy points toward a time of social change in higher education. In order to connect the literature on faculty work and the role of department chair to social change theory, a brief discussion on change is needed. Change is “improving the status quo, creating a better world, and demonstrating a comfort with transition and ambiguity in the process of change” (Komives & Wagner, 2016, p. 54). Change, in relation to this study, refers to alterations to current FTNTTF policies, practices, and cultures; potential changes to improve their working conditions, environments, and experiences. Furthermore, to work through the social change process a dance between resisting change or maintaining the status quo and embracing new ideas, values, structures, and practices can be expected (Wergin, 2007, 2009). In fact, However and Hormann (2009) write: Given the natural tendency to identify with one’s discipline or program, resisting any change looks and often feels personal. Such a perception may be based on common sense, lived experience, and personal clarity. Moreover, resistance may also represent the reaction of an internalized system of values and beliefs that is socially constructed, but largely unexamined. This unseen influence seems all the more consequential in the fast- paced complexity of our time. (p. 97) The sizeable increased use of FTNTTF in universities has brought renewed attention around historically long-standing traditions (e.g., the two-tier system), faculty work, shared 10 governance, along with new questions regarding policies, practices, and cultures that support this new faculty majority. Bowen and Tobin (2015) write the “shift in the mix of the teaching staff is truly revolutionary and shows no signs of abating” (p. 153). This shift is expected “to continue across all sectors of higher education” (p. 155). They go on to say, The benefits of new thinking could be substantial and universities would be well advised to acknowledge (as some already are) that full-time NTT faculty have been filling essential teaching roles for many years, and to move expeditiously to consider creating analogues professional teaching staff’ structures… and it should be a respected place; a concept that should resonate broadly and restore a needed measure of mutual respect and equity within the academy. (p. 162) Bowen and Tobin join the call for change that addresses “deep-seated organizational issues and, in particular, improve alignments between roles and responsibilities” (p. 182) regarding who constitutes faculty in higher education. The call for this type of change may be alarming for some, and much over-due for others. In this chapter, I provide a review of the literature related to faculty roles and work, the role of department chair, and organizational change in higher education. Studies and findings that highlight FTNTTF in particular are of most relevancy. Much scholarship on contingent faculty already exists, yet few studies focus solely on this faculty group. For instance, several studies and reports agree that a realignment of policy, practice, and work culture for NTTF is worth exploring (e.g., Kezar 2012b; 2012c, 2013b, Kezar & Sam, 2010; Ott & Cisneros, 2015; Morrison, 2008; Waltmen et al., 2012), but only a few studies look specifically at FTNTTF in recent years. Therefore, the selected literature for this review and future studies that focus on FTNTTF specifically could be considered timely research that contributes to the field in new and 11 important ways, and at a critical point as higher education navigates unfamiliar, non-traditional, and nebulous crossroads of faculty roles and work. Following a brief description of the seminal scholarship on faculty roles and work (2001- 2006), I look more closely at recent studies on FTNTTF. Then I look at literature that describes the role of department chairs followed by an examination of how scholarship on faculty work links the local level-department chair to FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures. Lastly, I explore scholarship on how organizational change happens, with two particular lenses: institutional change theory and the social change model and leadership theory. The literature review brings together the idea of department chairpersons as change agents regarding FTNTTF work; how their position at the local level most directly influences faculty daily life and suggests they are best positioned to advance inclusive and supportive work policies, practices, and cultures for this group of faculty. Faculty Roles and Work Topics explored in the literature include, who constitutes faculty, division and distribution of faculty work and responsibilities, and how to create more inclusive and supportive cultures (Baldwin & Chronister, 2001; Gappa et al., 2007; Hollenshead et al., 2007; MLA, 2007; Schuster & Finkelstein, 2006). To better understand the literature on faculty roles and work, I provide a description for both types of regular faculty (i.e., tenure-track and full-time non-tenure track), a chronological break-down in two groups: seminal (2001-2006) and recent early (2006- 2012 and 2013 to present) scholarship on FTNTTF. It should be noted that several studies (e.g., Kezar, 2012a, 2012b, 2013a, 2013b, 2018a) bridge between and connect the groups, further supporting the argument for more equitable policies, practices, and cultures for all faculty. While such studies are not the focus of the literature review on FTNTTF, they bring important value to 12 understanding the working conditions for non-tenure-track faculty (part-time and full-time) more broadly around topics like office space, salaries, multi-year contracts, and professional support (Gehrke & Kezar, 2015; Hollenshead et al., 2007; Kezar, 2012c, 2013a, Kezar 2013b). Bridge studies on the topic of NTTF issues in general heighten the call to action, advocacy, and change to policies, practices, and work cultures. Research by Kezar and others are woven throughout this literature, underpinning and connecting the two categories of scholarship on faculty work and roles to the role of the department chair. Therefore, they merit acknowledgement for their relevance and recognition for their contributions to this study. The two chronologically grouped literature reviews that follow describe how the research on contingent faculty grew from awareness and forecasting to a call for action for inclusion, reform, and equality. More specifically, research on FTNTTF work across these timeframes centers around issues of institutional commitment, collegiality, building and working in community, and the power of connection. Moreover, the literature points out FTNTTF need institutional leaders to focus on these areas for their work and well-being, as well as for student learning (Kezar, 2012b, 2013b). The Faculty The academy’s core resource is the faculty (Schuster & Finkelstein, 2006). Schuster and Finkelstein (2006) proport, “The future condition of the faculty is central to the well-being of the academy…and without an adequately functioning faculty in place…the academy would not be the academy” (p. 3). In this light, faculty are viewed as higher education’s greatest asset. Therefore, as this study examines the role of department chair regarding FTNTTF, I start by looking at the faculty within the two-tier system, who they are, the nature of their work, their needs as faculty, and the traditional division of faculty labor. First, I describe the roles and work 13 of tenure-track faculty followed by a description of full-time non-tenure track faculty roles and work. Tenure-Track Faculty Higher education organizes faculty in one of two ranks: tenure-track and non-tenure track. Historically, tenure-track faculty have represented the majority of faculty type, and within the two-tier system considered the top-tier faculty group. This rank has been comprised of academics who are hired full-time to teach undergraduate and graduate students, conduct research (which includes publications and presentations), and perform service (advising, committee work, administrative posts). The percentage of teaching, research, and service expected of tenure-track faculty depends on institution type, college and department needs, and individual faculty appointment understandings at the time of hire (Allen, 2000; Austin, 1996); but in general, tenure-track faculty provide institutions with valuable intellectual capital, promote and advance human knowledge, and help attract much needed funding for the institution. The tenure system has been the primary vehicle for protecting the functions of teaching, research and service (Bland et al., 2006; Bowden & Gonzalez, 2012) and is the reward for rigorous and productive work. After review of a faculty member’s performance by a committee of their peers, which often includes demonstrated evidence of dissemination of their work via conference and workshop presentations, and publications, tenure may be granted for completed work (journal articles, books, or other creative work). Oftentimes, tenure-track faculty are eligible for leave time (sabbatical) to focus on research or some form of professional development through the pre- and post-tenure process. Identifying the needs of tenure-track faculty helps institutions examine their policies and practices to better ensure faculty productivity, success, and well-being. A foundational study by 14 Gappa, Austin, and Trice (2005), Rethinking Academic Work and Workplaces, suggests five essential elements of faculty work: employment equity, academic freedom, balance and flexibility, professional growth, and collegiality and community involvement. In addition to these elements, tenure-track faculty express a need for autonomy, a sense of freedom and personal responsibility; job security and reward structures, opportunity for tenure and other advancement; a sense of legitimacy; feedback regarding their work; fair treatment in the workplace; and greater work-life balance (Gappa, Austin & Trice, 2005; Gonzales & Terosky, 2016; O’Meara, Lounder, & Campbell, 2014; Ott & Cisneros, 2015). Non-Tenure-Ttrack Faculty (full-time) The second tier in the traditional two-tier faculty system is comprised of non-tenure-track faculty, sometimes referred to as contingent faculty. The term contingent is misleading because in actual practice there are varying understandings of “non-tenure track” or “contingent” faculty. The label (NTT or contingent) is often confusing, misrepresentative of the role and function of those who carry it, and does not necessarily translate between institutions. Usually the title “contingent faculty” refers to part-time and full-time off-the-tenure track faculty, including graduate and post-doctoral students. Other terms used include non-tenure track eligible, tenure- track ineligible, fixed term appointment, adjunct, ladder, career faculty, lecturer, and instructor to collectively refer to non-tenure-track faculties who do not fit the traditional tenure-track model (Baldwin & Chronister, 2001). To lump together the various types of NTT faculty is erroneous as some roles are not faculty appointments, and some work is more temporary than others. The faculty track divide devalues the unique roles and purposes all faculty perform within higher education. For consistency and clarity, the term non-tenure-track faculty will be used in this study and refers to those whose primary role is teaching but may include research and service 15 depending on contract terms. More specifically this study focuses on full-time non-tenure-track faculty (FTNTTF), because to some degree, full-time non-tenure-track faculty are expected to perform in ways similar to their tenure-track colleagues. FTNTTF undertake teaching, research, and service. Their teaching parallels that of tenure-track faculty (Baldwin & Wawrzynski, 2011), their work promotes and advances human knowledge, and furthers the mission of their institution (Bland et al., 2006). Furthermore, FTNTT faculty require the same five essential elements Gappa, Austin, and Trice (2005) identified for job satisfaction for tenure-track faculty: employment equity, academic freedom, balance and flexibility, professional growth, and collegiality and community involvement. But FTNTTF also express a need for representation in decision-making processes; opportunities for advancement through clear and regular review and promotion process; professional development opportunities including funding to attend conferences and workshops; stability through multi-year contracts; research funds; eligibility for sabbatical; orientation; office space; resources for teaching; and work-life balance (AACU, 2015; Gappa & Trice, 2009; Ott & Cisneros, 2015; Waltman, Bergom, Hollenshead, Miller, & August, 2012). Although tension and controversy over who constitutes “faculty” is not a new issue, the increased hiring of FTNTTF has renewed the debate, raising concerns of policy and practice alignment, and presenting challenges for addressing deep, cultural change in higher education. To gain a deeper understanding of this unique group of regular faculty, in the next section I describe scholarship specific to FTNTTF. Scholarship on Full-Time Non-Tenure-Track Faculty From the seminal work by top researchers in the field (e.g., Baldwin & Chronister, Schuster & Finkelstein, Gappa) we gain a greater understanding of the needs, roles, and value 16 non-tenure-track faculty bring to higher education. Whereas Baldwin and Chronister (2001) are among the first to highlight and point out the unique role and work of FTNTTF in particular, Schuster and Finkelstein (2006) call our attention to how the rapid change in faculty demographics (i.e., more NTTF) has changed higher education as we know it; that who constitute faculty has been transformed. Equally significant, Gappa et al. (2007) highlight the change in faculty demographics with the increased use of contingent faculty, suggesting a rethinking of not only who constitutes faculty but also what faculty need to do their work. In studies building from seminal scholarship on non-tenure-track faculty in higher education scholars dive deeper into the conditions of faculty work and examine how higher education organizational systems and structures align to support the changing faculty. As a result, in addition to important re-occurring themes such as productivity, collegiality, and equality, new themes have emerged including sense of belonging, well-being, and the role of department leadership. Recent Scholarship on Full-Time Non-Tenure-Track Faculty (2006-2018) Early scholarship (2006-2012) on FTNTTF underscores the need to review systems, policies, and practices for this growing group of faculty to help ensure institutional success. It should be noted that very little literature in this timeframe focuses specifically on FTNTTF, as defined in this study. Therefore, only two studies were selected from this timeframe for the literature review because of their focus on FTNTTF (Bland, Center, Finstad, Risbey, & Staples, 2006; Levin & Shafer, 2011). Comparatively, in more recent years (2013-2018), while studies on non-tenure-track faculty continue to grow, still only a handful of scholarship exist on FTNTTF exclusively. It is important to examine this particular group given their work and academic preparation is similar 17 to tenure-track faculty, and the fact that they continue to be hired at an increasing rate. As scholars examine the phenomenon of changing faculty, their findings shed light on both new and continuing issues. For example, in recent scholarship (2013-2018) researchers draw attention to reciprocity, positive faculty cultures, collegiality, and impact on student learning. Here, I identify four specific studies on FTNTTF, highlighting the continued need to look at alignment of policies and practices, and how change might happen for this unique and growing group of faculty-for the benefit of all. The four studies include Alleman and Haviland (2016), Figlio, Schapiro, and Soter (2015), Haviland, Alleman, and Allen (2017), and Ott and Cisneros (2015). Collectively, the themes in the early and recent research on FTNTTF highlight pressing gaps and tensions facing this group of faculty and leadership in higher education currently: commitment, collegiality, community, and connection. Commitment. Adapted from Astin (1996), HERI (1996), and Wagner (2007), Komives, and Wagner (2016) describe commitment as “an intrinsic passion, energy, and purposeful investment toward action [that involves] follow-through and willing involvement [that leads] to positive social change” (p.54). Commitment is an agreement, pledge or purposeful investment between two or more parties who are dedicated to a mission, cause or goal, and which may be evidenced by reciprocity and potential outcomes beneficial to all parties. It is an agreement of intentions and/or actions (Merriam-Webster, n.d.). More simply, commitment is “a promise or firm decision to do something” (Cambridge Dictionary, n.d.). Institutions can convey their commitment to faculty in a variety of ways. One straight forward, transparent, and universal way is through policy. A type of policy in this context is faculty contracts. Contracts describe and record the agreement between the institution and faculty. Contracts convey institutional commitment to faculty for the work they do as teachers, 18 researchers and in service to the mission. However, when faculty do not feel supported in their work due to inconsistent hiring and review practices, they feel vulnerable and hindered from performing at their best (Kezar, 2013b; Kezar & Maxey, 2014; O’Meara, Kaufman & Kuntz, 2003). Due to a lack of commitment at the highest level (institutional) FTNTTF may be less committed and unproductive (Bland et al., 2006). Bland et al., attribute this to a systems failure- that appointment type and organizational structures influence productivity more than individual features. This is known as the 85-15 rule. The 85-15 rule, as taught by Edward Deming, states that 85% of a worker’s performance is determined by the system they work within, and the remaining 15% by their individual effort. The conclusion is unmistakable. Improving organizational performance must address the work system as well as the individual worker. (Barnes & Van Wormer, 2003, p.116) Bland et al. 's study (2006) gives evidence for review of policy, practice, and work cultures regarding FTNTTF so that they align more for their success, and in order to increase their productivity and commitment. In fact, Bland et al. state, “Institutions must thoughtfully design an integrated personnel system, of both tenure and non-tenure appointment” (p. 117). Umbach (2007) similarly reports that given these work conditions and a possible lack of institutional commitment, “it should surprise few that contingent (NTTF) display a lack of commitment and perform less effectively than their tenure and tenure-track peers” (p. 110). In unstable work environments where lack of institutional commitment exists, FTNTTF feel devalued (Levin & Shafer, 2011; Ott & Cisneros, 2015; Reevy & Deason, 2014). Related, Figlio, Chapiro and Soter (2013) found in their study on student learning at Northwestern University that FTNTTF are more effective in inducing students to take more 19 classes and prepare students well for success in subsequent course work when compared to tenure-track faculty. They report that “a substantial majority of contingent faculty at Northwestern are full-time faculty members with long-term contracts and benefits, and therefore may have a stronger commitment to the institution than some of their contingent counterparts at other institutions” (p.723). Thus, where institutional commitment to FTNTTF exist, not only is there greater commitment from FTNTTF, but a reciprocity of commitment between the institution and its faculty can foster student learning and success. Similarly, Ott and Cisneros (2015) suggest the importance of reciprocity, and echo a key point made by Gappa et al. (2007), that colleges and universities must demonstrate commitment to faculty just as commitment from the faculty to the institution is expected. One way by which reciprocity is visible is through inclusive and supportive policies and practices. Where inconsistencies occur, instability and unrest are likely environments. Unstable, negative environments and working conditions tend to foster disenfranchised, disconnected, and disadvantaged faculty (Kezar, 2013b; Kezar & Maxey, 2014), and increase depression, stress, and anxiety in faculty members (Reevy & Deason, 2014). Discontented faculty could negatively impact student learning (Kezar, 2012b, 2013b). A review of institutional structures and systems via policies, faculty contracts, and hiring and reward practices can provide a better understanding of existing values, cultures, and practices, and reveal areas for improvement regarding commitment to FTNTTF work. Collegiality. Collegiality is a combination of commitment and inclusive governance with valuing and trust in colleagues (Alleman & Haviland, 2017). Collegiality is identified as an essential element or characteristic that affects faculty work (Gappa et al., 2007) and refers to a sense of belonging that can foster feelings of being valued and respected (Kezar & Maxey, 20 2015). A collegial culture is supportive, inclusive, and respectful. The structures within this type of culture demonstrate commitment and value voice (Haviland, Alleman & Allen, 2017). However, collegiality is not always offered equally to all faculty. Both early and recent scholarship on FTNTTF report a grave concern about lack of collegiality. FTNTTF describe themselves as second-class citizens, as foreigners, outsiders, chameleon-like, and detached (Levin & Shafer, 2011; Ott & Cisneros, 2015). Haviland, Alleman and Allen (2017) in their study on FTNTTF work experiences, write, “Collegiality is foundational to academic governance” (p.506), and it is an issue of who has access to it; that “collegiality implies both right and responsibility” (p. 507). However, in the two-tier system that divides faculty by appointment type, collegiality may be present among peers of similar appointment or it may be lacking or even absent between appointment types (Haviland et al., 2017; Levin & Shafter, 2013). The lack of collegial structures (shared governance, committee membership with voting rights) produce inequity that (de)values faculty depending on their appointment type. Many FTNTTF report a lack of collegiality (respect, trust, inclusion) from tenure-track colleagues in their department (Ott & Cisneros, 2015). The attitudes and behaviors of tenure-track colleagues towards FTNTTF may stem from the stereotype that FTNTTF are lower quality and not viewed as their peers (Baldwin & Chronister, 2001; Kezar & Sam, 2010). A lack of collegiality creates barriers that impede a sense of belonging and community, as well as a sense of legitimacy for FTNTTF (Alleman & Haviland, 2017). In fact, Haviland et al. (2017) in their study on collegial experiences of FTNTTF, found that many participants describe their experiences as invisible in the shadows, even when performing work similarly done by tenure- track faculty, and that “full access to the collegium and collegiality is [based on] scholarship” (p. 523). 21 Scholars also link a decline in collegiality and democratic governance to the unbundling of faculty work (Macfarlane, 2011; McCowan, 2017). In order to meet the demand to teach the masses with limited budgetary resources more FTNTTF are hired and at a fraction of the cost of tenure-track faculty (Craig, 2015; Kezar, Gehrke & Maxey, 2014; Macfarlane, 2011). By unbundling faculty work, FTNTTF often take on heavy teaching loads, committee work, and fulfill administrative positions so that tenure-track faculty can focus on research (Baldwin & Chronister, 2001; Finkelstein & Schuster, 2001; Kezar, 2012a, 2012b; Kezar & Same, 2010). In fact, Waltman et al. (2012) report that FTNTTF represent 48 percent of faculty in RI institutions. Hiring FTNTTF for specific roles or work that otherwise historically and traditionally described the work of tenure-track faculty can further perpetuating feelings of isolation, disconnect, and a lack of collegiality in FTNTTF. As a result, FTNTTF are not equally included in important decisions that affect them directly (e.g., institutional and departmental policies, curriculum planning and assessment) simply because of their appointment type. The exclusion from access to academic governance based on appointment status is an unfair and inequitable practice harmful to faculty (Hollenshead et al, 2007) that may result in feelings of disenfranchisement, marginalization, inferiority, and illegitimacy as FTNTTF are kept on the periphery (Drake, Struve, Meghani & Bukoski, 2019; Haviland et al., 2017). However, in instances where faculty are willing to look across faculty rank and appointment type, collegiality is possible and empowering. Haviland et al. (2017) and Kezar and Lester (2009) report that when administrative leaders acknowledge, give credit to, or provide resources to faculty, regardless of rank or appointment type, they are acting as an advocate, legitimizing faculty work and value. A review of institutional policies, practices, and work cultures, starting at the department level and with the department chair might reveal areas for 22 improving collegial structures and behaviors that affect FTNTTF, and provide a better understanding to the values and cultures still at play in the two-tier system. Community. Community can be defined in specific locations such as a classroom, campus, organization, or nation, or it can be defined broadly as in the “larger whole” (Komives & Wagner, 2016, p. 56). Either way, a community is made-up of all its individuals including students, faculty, and citizens who contribute in many direct and indirect ways through engagement, participation, and relationship building with others and across differences for the good of the larger whole. In other words, community is an environment where relationships, interactions, and engagements (formal and informal; internal and external) occur collaboratively between persons, units, institutions, and other agencies with overlapping or shared attitudes, interest, and goals (Merriam-Webster, n.d.). Community can be fostered via formal interactions between two parties (e.g., employment contracts) and informal interactions between people (e.g., daily micro-interactions). However, being a part of a community does not equate membership with sense of belonging, duty, or acceptance. Waltman et al. (2012) and Umbach (2007) report that while FTNTTF are more committed, they remain marginalized outsiders, not fully a part of the community. Feelings of disconnect and being marginalized is often reported by FTNTTF (Allen & Haviland, 2017; Haviland et al., 2017; Levin & Shafer, 2011; Ott & Cisneros, 2015). Ideally a community of scholars would be an inclusive work environment where all faculty feel their work is respected and valued. An inclusive community would connect faculty to one another, within departments, across faculty rank and units, and more broadly toward a common purpose. Although this is the ideal, FTNTTF report a different working community. In early and recent scholarship, FTNTTF express feelings of discontentment and disconnect as department members (Levin & Shafer, 2011). They also report feeling devalued (Allen & 23 Haviland, 2017) and disenfranchisement at every level within their institution (Haviland et al., 2017). Participants in a study on the identity of FTNTF (Levin & Shafer, 2011) describe themselves in relationship to their disciplinary, departmental, and university communities as the worker bee, the day laborer, second tier, a foreigner, a subaltern, removed from the department, ill positioned, an outsider, a fighter, invisible, isolated, a “near-peer,” and disconnected. Only one of the 18 respondents described their position as “community member.” These FTNTTF struggle to create a professional identity within their campus communities and contribute their “dualistic identity” to the academic hierarchy and the two-tier system (Levin & Shafer, 2011). In a divided work community like this study describes, FTNTTF are regarded as expert teachers by their students, but second-class, inferior faculty by tenure-track faculty. Acceptance in this case is partial, where full membership into this community is dependent on appointment type rather than contribution or shared goal. Similarly, Alleman, and Haviland (2017) connect collegiality (a sense of belonging) to being a mutually respected member of a community. In their study on FTNTTF engagement , they describe collegial communities as a place where a common purpose is achieved when certain values and actions align. Participants in this study described their sense of community as it relates to experiences of membership and legitimacy in their departments (inclusion in governance and voting rights) and describe being a part of the community when faculty work together towards the common goal of student learning. However, the FTNTTF commonly reported they felt most fulfilled and connected to their community in relationships with other FTNTTF, and less so with tenure-track faculty. Many FTNTTF experienced surface level acceptance via friendly interactions and being invited to departmental social events, but not as 24 full members of the community or equal to tenure-track faculty. They attributed this exclusion based on the difference of appointment type. A divided community such as described by these scholars seems to be based on or determined by the division of labor or the type of work performed. A divided community maintains the status quo, rather than building on unique strengths and contributions that together fulfill the mission of the institution. Pivotal to changing ideas and social norms is building a sense of community at multiple levels (Kezar, 2012b). A review of policy, practices, and work cultures regarding FTNTTF might reveal areas where collaborative energies, through formal and informal interactions, can build community among all members and extend beyond friendly greetings and social events. By examining the role of department chair we can better understand how they influence their community to work towards common goals, shared purposes, and the institutional mission. Connection and Empowerment. Connection is the existence of networking, partnership, or associations with others; a linking of people, things or ideas with others (Merriam-Webster, n.d.). In some instances, leaders may use their position and/or relationships to influence policy, practice, and work cultures. Komives and Wagner (2016), in their book on social change and leadership development describe the first step in becoming a change agent as empowerment and acknowledge the notion of power. They define power as “the ability to make things happen” (p.402). For example, there is connection power, “power because of your relationship or friendship to a person who is important to someone else” (p. 403), the power of purpose, “power that is driven by a vision or a goal, and is characterized by sharing influence and a lessening of personal ego,” and perceived power, “power a person has to influence others” (p. 404). These notions of power can help in understanding how individuals and groups accomplish change 25 through connections. As mentioned in the literature review on faculty, the more recent studies point to the department chair as the connector (Haviland et al., 2017; Kezar 2013b; Ott & Cisneros, 2015) and key change agent for FTNTTF. I will return to the theme of connection in the literature review section on department chair. Summary of Scholarship on Faculty Roles and Work In summary, seminal scholarship on faculty roles and work (e.g., Baldwin & Chronister, 2001; Gappa et al., 2007; Schuster & Finkelstein, 2006) first forecasted the change in faculty and nudged all stakeholders in higher education to rethink how to focus on essentials that all faculty need in order to maintain a thriving academy. Shortly following, other scholarship emerged (e.g., Bland et al., 2006; Levin & Shafer, 2011) that brought attention to FTNTTF in particular and gave evidence for a review of the systems and organizational structures that influence faculty productivity, and how best to incorporate this new group of faculty in order for institutions to achieve their missions. Now, more than a decade later, there has been another shift in scholarship on faculty work, roles, and working conditions. The more recent scholarship calls for more collegial and collective energies that foster inclusive cultures in order to realign institutional policies and practices for FTNTTF specifically. There continues to be a call for shared governance and equality for all faculty. In their book Locus of Authority, Bowen and Tobin (2015) claim the one-hundred-year-old governance system needs to be redefined, that it is a product of its times, and that the current system needs to continue to evolve in fundamental ways in response to the changes in higher education. The notion of re-examining standing traditions and making changes necessary to re-align with new circumstances supports scholarship by Ott and Cisneros (2015), Allen and Haviland, (2017), Haviland et al. (2017), Kezar (2018b) and 26 others. These scholars recommend a review of current systems, structures, policies and practices regarding faculty work. The literature review of faculty work and roles points to a number of questions that may surface in this research. For example, institutional administrators and faculty might ask what are their current structures and practices regarding FTNTTF including hiring and review processes, governance structures, guiding handbooks, and governing documents? How are decisions about faculty roles and work made? Specifically, what is the process and who has voting rights? Who has access to the decision-making processes? Who is allowed to serve on committees and assume leadership positions? And, how are FTNTTF represented or included in these matters? In the second section of the literature review I examine the role of the department chair, by describing the position and its purpose, acknowledging the challenges that come with the post, and exploring the associated and/or assumed expectations of the role and work of department chairs. Department Chairs Department chairs serve an important purpose as mid-level administrators in higher education (Gonaim, 2016; Morris & Miller, 2008; Rosser, 2000, 2004a). Carroll and Wolverton (2004) report that 80% of administrative decisions in higher education are made by department chairs. Most commonly, senior faculty advance to this position through faculty ranks on the tenure-track path and rotate into this position from within a department (Creswell, Wheeler, Seagren, Egly & Beyer, 1990). The position of the department chair is commonly seen as a center connector between administration and faculty, across units, between faculty within the department, and between faculty and students. Organizationally, departments are the basic unit for faculty (Bowen & Tobin, 2015), are the local bargaining units where contract terms are 27 determined (Rhoades & Maitland, 2008), and where mid-level leadership is needed to bring about cultural change called for by the university (Quinn, 2007). In general, department chairpersons’ roles and influence fall under three areas: organizational structures, administrative cultures, and individual values. In the organizational structure, department chairs are viewed as mid-level leaders who connect the institutional mission with the faculty and students. Those in the role are expected to handle tensions vertically and horizontally (Creswell et al., 1990; Roper & Deal, 2010). They are often recognized for “contribute[ing] significantly to the academic organization by serving and supporting the primary functions of teaching, research, and service” (Rosser, 2004a, p. 318). Secondly, department chairs directly influence the administrative cultures they are responsible for, often in significant ways (Morris & Miller, 2008). As mid-level administrators they can foster a positive work environment that affects morale through encouraging and motivating faculty to excel in teaching, research and service. Department chairs serve as advocates when unsatisfactory work conditions exist and strive to build safe and inclusive spaces where all feel accepted and valued (Goniam, 2016). Thirdly, department chairs lead and influence others in their workspaces via the values they promote (Griffith & Henry, 2006), including what they might value individually or independent from the system (Kezar, 2001). Departments are political units and department chairs have to carefully navigate their personal views and preferences within and across institutional and department cultures (Bolman & Deal, 2000; Kezar, 2001; Lees, Malik & Vemuri, 2009). By intentionally leveraging their spheres of influence, department chairs can look for ways to secure buy-in from others in matters where their thinking and values might differ from the norm in order to effect institutional and departmental culture change (Lucas, 28 2000). For example, if the chair believes current policies, practices, and cultures regarding FTNTTF need attention, they might seek out other faculty and administrators who share this same view and begin to build relationships, trust, and energy around the issue. A department chair acting in this way is what Kezar (2012a) refers to as supportive leadership with incremental efforts towards shared goals. Watt (2007) identifies a needed leadership characteristic of department chairs as encouraging risk-taking behavior in others while also being willing to take risks themselves. While the role and work of the department chair is significant and complex, it also comes with many challenges. Challenges It is important to recognize some of the challenges associated with the position of the department chair. Doing so provides a clearer picture of the needs, value of, and influence of the department chair. Potential challenges are reflected in the areas of leadership development, balancing expectations, and working as a change agent and connector. Leadership Development Leadership and administrative training sparsely exist for department chairs, and leadership development at this level is often lacking (Kezar & Lester, 2009; Morris & Miller 2008). More commonly, training occurs through on-the-job-experience or from observing other leaders (Creswell et al., 1990). Austin and Sorcinelli (2013) state, “Faculty members who move into the role of department chair or head often have little preparation for the roles they are expected to assume” (p. 90). While scholars and those in the field agree that the position of department chair is an integral part of the leadership team in higher education institutions, workshops and other leadership development for this administrative post are insufficient (Gonaim, 2016; Quinn, 2007). 29 In fact, some scholars suggest a leadership crisis in higher education (Appadurai, 2009; Gmelch, 1991, 2002; Gonaim, 2016; Watt, 2009) due to a limited number of tenure-track faculty who want to take on a leadership role like department chair. Often there is a lack of mentorship, and the selection pool is limited. The consequences of this can be far reaching and felt for some time at departmental and institutional levels. Kezar and Lester (2009) state, “The result of all of this re-shifting of roles and workload is that faculty appear to have little time or incentive to participate in leadership” (p. 719). However, at the same time, they note “that a number of organizations have now identified leadership development of chairs as a key priority” (p. 721), and that the learning environment will suffer if not addressed. In particular to departments, Austin and Sorcinelli (2013) add, “Leadership development at the department chair level is particularly important because this position involves connecting administrative decisions and interests with faculty work and perspectives” (p.90). These claims underscore the importance and potential influence of the department chair at local and more broad levels in higher education. Strong leadership in mid-level roles builds strong institutions (Bryman, 2007). At a time when the working environment appears unstable for FTNTTF, steady leadership at the local departmental level seems most needed. Organizationally, department chairs are positioned most directly to FTNTTF, connecting their need for more inclusive and supportive policies, practices, and work cultures to those who have the power to address change in these areas. Chairs work closely with deans and other administrators who are responsible for hiring and managing faculty contracts. Through working together, policy, practice, and a culture of commitment can be fostered. Chairs work directly with faculty and may be best positioned to create an inclusive community for all faculty. Chairs directly work with FTNTTF in their departments and can create supportive practices of their work by advocating for professional development funding, 30 including them on committees, and inviting them to other important decision-making groups. Chairs with leadership development experiences can help develop, empower, and advocate for others. Not only does the lack of leadership development present challenges for the department chair, but so do the many expectations that come with the position. Balancing Expectations The department chair position requires an important balancing act on several fronts including working between higher administration and local-level faculty; managing administrative duties while maintaining their own research and teaching; balancing work-life responsibilities with the added demands that come with chairmanship responsibility (more meetings, casting vision, leading faculty, etc.); leading in decision-making processes; knowing when and how to delegate responsibilities to others; and working out their own need for role models at the same time that others look to them for guidance, mentoring, and advocacy (Gmelch, 2004; Kezar & Lester, 2009; Morris & Miller 2008). It is no surprise that department chairs report experiencing feelings of being overwhelmed (Gonaim, 2016). Many challenges chairs face come from inexperience, lack of training and development, working with limited resources, balancing internal and external pressures, and handling faculty issues (Gmelch & Mishkin, 2004; Wolverton, Ackerman & Holt, 2005). Good scholars do not always make good leaders, and a gifted academician might not be an optimal leader. While some faculty may be born leaders, there are some leadership skills that must be learned and developed (Gmelch, 2000; Goniam, 2016; Lucas, 2000). Regardless of whether leaders are born or made, it is imperative to have leadership that creates an enjoyable work environment (Morris & Miller; 2008; Rosser, 2000; Quinn, 2007; Watt 2009). Kezar and Lester (2009) report that chairs significantly contribute to institutional change by influencing 31 work conditions, by influencing those in positions of authority, and by advocating for shared governance. In addition to being a scholar, teacher, administrator, manager, colleague, and family member, chairs are also expected to be influencers and change agents. Chair as influencer, advocate, change agent. The role of the department chair is often described as key, as important, and “where most of the work gets done” (Wolverton et al., 2005, p. 227). Morris and Miller (2008) write, “within the academic department the chair has the most influence over faculty and academic support staff members; however, many institutions fail to recognize the importance of this unique and challenging position” (p. 1). Kezar (2012) adds, “Both institutional and departmental policies are important for shaping faculty members’ lives; however, in studies of faculty, departmental policies are often most salient for shaping their experience” (p. 573). For tenure-track faculty, institutions may oversee hiring and orientation at a higher, broader level. Whereas departmental policies and practices around hiring, orientation, socialization, teaching load, and service are typically where FTNTTF are more intimately and directly impacted (Baldwin & Chronister, 2001; Quinn, 2007). Many scholars portray the department chair as the key influencer or change agent needed at the “local bargaining unit.” They assert the chair is best positioned to leverage relationships that can improve conditions at their institutions (Amey, 2010; Goniam, 2016; Kezar, 2012a, 2012b, 2013a, 2013b; Kezar & Lester, 2009; Morris & Miller, 2008; Morrison, 2008; Quinn, 2007; Rhoades & Maitland, 2008; Wergin, 2007). Potentially, the chair can uniquely influence tenure-track faculty, set the tone and agenda for department meetings, and create a safe, inclusive environment where all faculty have a voice. Additionally, the chair has the ear of the administration and can be an advocate for all faculty on important policies and every-day work- life practices (Rosser, 2000). In these ways, the department chair acts much like a change agent 32 who, in collaboration with others, helps to enact transformational change (Quinn, 2007). Transformational change effects culture, long standing policies and practices, and deeply held expectations of others and requires department chairs to serve as manager, mentor, and advocate (Morris & Miller, 2008). In the context of transformational change, chairs are viewed as the link between faculty and administration, the conduit within the hierarchical structure of higher education. Roper and Deal (2010) refer to department chairs, along with deans, as “the key linchpins that connect the institution’s mission with the faculty’s teaching and research” (p. 1). Chairs, as change agents, can encourage buy-in from others, foster collaboration, navigate tensions, and work towards the betterment of others (Morris & Miller, 2008). They can be catalysts for innovation and change (Deetz, 1992; Gonaim, 2016). Furthermore, scholars claim that encouraging inclusive and supportive work environments promotes effectiveness in a department and ultimately has a positive impact on students (Kezar, 2013b; Morris & Miller, 2008; Rosser, 2000). In short, all faculty often look to their department chair as their “advocate,” whether it be for requesting additional funding for academic programing or professional development or advocating for policies and practices that support their work in new ways. Scholarship points to the chair as the key influencer in a department. In fact, in a 2013(b) study, Kezar concluded that changing the support structure for NTTF to include more administrative support, teaching resources, autonomy, and opportunities for feedback and meaningful input, can improve the working conditions of NTTF. Kezar (2013b) suggests combining institutional and departmental level efforts to increase the opportunity for NTTF to be successful. Furthermore, Kezar’s study calls for a redirecting of campus priorities toward faculty policies by examining accountability systems for more effective policy execution at the local level. 33 Chair as connector. The department chair connects relationally: horizontally across faculty ranks and units as well as vertically within the hierarchy of the institution. The department chair also connects internally within their department, field, institution as well as externally with other institutions and stakeholders. As I described in the literature review section faculty roles work, faculty need to connect with administrators to address gaps and tensions in addressing and implementing policy, practices, and work cultures regarding FTNTTF. In fact, collective and collaborative strategies are often more successful in addressing issues or advancing efforts towards change (Kezar, 2018b). Progress or change rarely is the result of one person. Each section of the literature review points to how the department chair connects relationally and intentionally. Through their networking and connectivity, they can influence change. Ott and Cisneros (2015) suggest that department chairs, as advocates, work with FTNTTF to ensure adequate resources are provided, including paid career development leave. Department chairs can invite and expect FTNTTF to participate in committee work and other decision-making bodies. By chairs intentionally looking for opportunities to connect FTNTTF to the department and to other faculty and administrators, they become a key connector, advocate, and change agent. Connections like these are examples of how chairs can influence policies, practices, and cultures that address gaps and tensions FTNTTF experience. Department chairs have the opportunity to provide voice to this often disconnected and disenfranchised group of faculty (Alleman & Haviland, 2017). Furthermore, when chairs, deans, and other administrators work together to encourage and reward NTT participation in departmental, college, and university committees and governance bodies they can, “facilitate the types of personal interactions that contribute to a 34 collegial climate, as well as ensure academic decisions are informed by the experiences of faculty across appointment types” (Ott & Cisneros, 2015, p.17). Similarly, Haviland et al. (2017) and Kezar and Lester (2009) describe the influence connecting, or the lack of connecting, with others has on FTNTTF. A participant in Haviland et al. 's (2017) study describes the disconnect she felt when her department chair was showing a prospective student around. While sitting in her office with the door open, she overheard the chair tell the student, “I’d introduce you to some faculty members, but nobody is here right now” (p.517). How FTNTF connect to, or in this case are disconnected from, others can have far reaching consequences and speaks to concerns about commitment, collegiality, and community. Conversely, when administrative leaders like department chairs and deans use their position and influence intentionally, they can help connect FTNTTF to resources and opportunities, elevate their role, and validate their work (Kezar & Lester, 2009). In fact, scholars report that departments can contribute to institutional change (Lucas et al., 2000). By examining more closely how department chairs connect FTNTTF to others, we can gain a better understanding of how position and relationships influence change or maintain the status quo. Through data collection and analysis on department chairs we can gain insights into ways department chairs bridge differences and/or strengthen connections for FTNTTF relationally and organizationally both horizontally and vertically. In summary, department chairs as academic leaders can influence their environments in many ways (Amey, 2006) They are key to how institutions function and have the potential to influence deep change (Amey, 2010; Quinn, 2007; Watt, 2007, 2009). Chairs are both “a resource and relational support” (Bilimoria, 2006, p. 358), who “rely heavily on relationships” (Roper & Deal, 2010, p.1) to do their work. Department chair roles and influence fall under three 35 areas: organizational structures, administrative cultures, and individual values. Department chairs serve an important purpose, despite the complexities and challenges that come with the position. Whether described as leader or administrator, mentor, advocate or change agent, the literature gives evidence to the potential influence the role of department chair can have on institutional and departmental policies, practices, and cultures. Amey (2006) writes: Academic leaders create learning environments that include cultural awareness, acceptance of multiple intelligences and ways of knowing, strategic thinking, engagement, and a sense of collective identity as collaborators in developing knowledge and active investigators into practice. They are skilled facilitators who encourage interdisciplinary collaboration, collective responsibility, cultural change, and an interest in the public good. They lead via partnerships and teams in systems that are web-like and non-hierarchical. And in an era of heightened accountability, the culture of evidence is critical to successful academic leadership. (p. 56) By examining the role of the department chair more closely, we can better understand how best to re-align policies, practices, and cultures to further support the ever-growing FTNTTF in higher education. Department chairs who lead as change agents within their organization challenge the process, inspire a shared vision, empower others, model the way, and encourage with heart (Kouzes & Posner, 2005; Morris & Miller, 2008). This description of the department chair is quite similar to elements found in institutional change theory (ICT) and social change theory. When chairs lead with a change agent approach, they can help their institutions, faculty and students perform at their best, and influence deep change. 36 Change Theories In this section I describe the theoretical framework to which this study connects. The theories that I selected support the central concept of this study related to the role of the department chair as a key influencer or change agent for advancing policy, practice, and cultural change processes regarding FTNTTF. First, I look at the notion of change generally. Then I describe the two theories selected: institutional change theory (ICT), and social change theory. These descriptions are followed by an explanation of how the theories work in concert in order to frame this study. Change Kezar (2001) in her book Understanding and Facilitating Organizational Change in the 21s Century writes, “higher education institutions are important social institutions that maintain timeless [and important] values,” and recognizes “how vastly institutions have changed over the years” (p. 8). Change, both planned and unplanned, in higher education is a common facet and is inevitable (Kezar; 2018; Wergin, 2007). Interestingly, Schuster and Finkelstein (2006) write “American higher education is undergoing a swift and sweeping transformation” (p. 346), and note one of the five policy challenges they predicted over a decade ago centers around staffing arrangements and who constitutes faculty. These authors suggest a re-calibration of policies, practices, and cultures due to this policy challenge. Higher education is at a socio-political- cultural change crossroads regarding the change in faculty composition. Kezar (2001) describes a socio-political-cultural change as a cognitive, tension-riddled response to the alterations of norms, values, and the human environment. This type of change, altering the paradigms through which we view negotiations and power structures, results in new beliefs, values, and cultures. The kind of change regarding the role of department chair and FTNTTF calls for a social 37 movement involving social, political, and cultural elements. While this study does not focus on power structures specifically, they do exist and to some degree cannot be fully separated from the change process. That being said, the theory most central to this study is that of social change. Komives and Wagner (2016) describe social change as “acts that aim to improve the human condition or care for the environment” (p.4), and state that social change focuses on two criteria: “giving attention to the root causes of the problems and collaboration with others” (p. 11). Furthermore, deep, social change occurs when leaders focus on changing the culture. When the focus is on culture, it can be “one of the most important ways to institutionalize [the] changes” (Kezar, 2012b, p. 16) by altering policies that affect practices. The academic department, as thus its leadership, play an important role in the social change because one of the key roles of the department is to connect or “to develop a mesh between the priorities of the institution, those of the department, and those of the individual faculty members, whose careers are played out within the department” (Lucas & Associates, 2000, p. 145). From the literature review on faculty and department chairs presented for this study, we can see that the increased hiring of FTNTTF has presented higher education with a social change challenge. Additionally, FTNTTF need a change agent to advocate and influence change for more inclusive and supportive work policies, practices, and cultures to address their continued marginalized experiences and unmet needs. In order for this kind of change to occur, a change agent or leader is essential, and the department chair is best positioned for this influential role regarding FTNTTF work and well-being. Therefore, in order to examine how the role of the department chair influences FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures, I build from how institutions change more generally, and then move more deeply into how the social change model capture or frame the role of change agent in the social change process. 38 Institutional Change Theory (ICT) Institutional change theory (ICT) describes how institutions change. ICT is a three-stage model: mobilization, implementation, and institutionalization. The model is used to map efforts towards institutionalization or long-term change. Institutional change is “the point at which an innovative practice having been implemented loses its special project status and becomes part of a sustained behavior of the institutional system” (Curry, 1992, p.10 in Kezar, 2012b). In other words, ICT addresses long-term, status quo changes that occur in higher education. Key throughout the ICT process is a change agent/leader directing the process providing direction, motivation, inspiration, vision, skills, role-modeling, and support for implementation (Kezar, 2012b). This leader works collaboratively with others, collecting information to inform the process, and is “a key lever to institutionalization” (Kezar, 2012b, p.47). In studies that employ ICT, the following conditions are present: a developed rationale and a well-crafted action plan with a clear agenda paired with an incremental approach. By framing this study using ICT, we can better identify and describe how the role of department chair (serving as change agent) can influence change and the change process regarding FTNTTF policies, practices, and cultures. Through careful examination of institutional and departmental documents we can identify the mechanisms in place to meet the current needs of FTNTTF (, and it provides the opportunity to assess related issues around access and decision- making practices to the creation of these documents. From semi-structured interviews with department chairs, we can gain an understanding as to where, how, and why their department is positioned within the ICT three-stage process, as well as what role(s) the chair played, and in what ways the process occurred. A comparative analysis of these findings can further our understanding on how the role of department chairs influence FTNTTF policies and practices 39 locally and more broadly at the institutional level. Institutional change theory leads to questions such as: what role do department chairs play in mobilizing and implementing change regarding FTNTTF? And, how do department chairs influence institutionalization of changes that pertain to FTNTTF work policies, practices, and work cultures in non-unionized colleges and universities? Role of Social Change Agent Social change aims to permanently alter the status quo in order to improve the human condition or environment and requires a change agent who is willing to take risks, empower others and use their relationships to influence change. Together the social change model and social change leadership theory describe the type of leader or change agent needed to enact the deep change regarding FTNTTF. The social change model (SCM) of leadership development was originally designed for college students to learn how to work effectively with others to create social change over their lifetimes. It requires individuals to “dig deeper and embrace the plethora of perspectives that exist in our changing world” (Komives & Wagner, 2016 p. 43), and then together create change that benefits or improves the condition for others. The SCM is intentional in developing leaders who will focus on improving or altering the status quo. In the SCM (Komives & Wagner, 2016), leadership involves collaborative relationships, starting with the leader being socially minded and operating “with an awareness of the ways in which the group’s decisions and actions affect others, is concerned about all members, and the impacts of their decision-making” (p.33). Collaboration is a core value of the SCM and is grounded in the relationships formed between people. It focuses on a shared responsibility and accountability. Simply put, the SCM involves leaders and followers. Being that leaders do not 40 act alone (Komives & Wagner, 2016; Watt, 2009), they also create a followership by influencing or motivating others to buy-in to their vision and mission. In a leader-follower context, the SCM encourages leaders to build coalitions, to collaborate, and work towards a common purpose. Barwick (2007) describes the leader-follower context as a co-existing relationship where “the leader needs the followers in order to reach the objective, and the followers need the guidance, encouragement, and vision” (p. 155). Through their collective efforts, leaders and followers work towards change. The SCM outlines seven components, referred to as Cs, of social change. In this study I focus only on a select few that most apply and connect with ICT including: commitment (individual), collaborative (group connectivity), civility (or collegiality – group), and citizenship (community/Society). These Cs connect to the four Cs categories that emerged in the literature review on FTNTTF work (commitment, collegiality, community, connections), and are often used to describe the role of department chairs. Specifically, chairs must be committed to the mission, lead via collaborative efforts vertically and horizontally, foster collegial environments, and intentionally connect and build community via influence and relationship. By on selected SCM Cs, we can better understand how department chairs influence others from varying perspectives to work collectively and how collaborative approaches might be used to enact change to the status quo. Furthermore, by using the SCM as part of my theoretical framework, we can identify and describe how department chairs might enact practices that convey commitment to institutional mission, foster collegiality across institutional hierarchy and across faculty ranks within their department, build community through collaborative efforts, and connect others in ways that relate to FTNTTF policies, practices, and cultures. Lastly, the SCM can aid in the analysis of data by providing potential categories for emerging themes, and 41 in guiding the discussion of the findings. The social change model leads me to ask questions such as: how does the role of department chair influence and convey commitment to FTNTTF? How does the role of department chair influence collaboration and/or collaborative efforts regarding FTNTTF policies, practice, and work cultures? How does the role of department chair influence community building in relation to FTNTTF? How does the role of department chair, through their relationships and interactions with others, influence connectivity for FTNTTF within the department and across the campus? Related to the social change model, the social change leadership theory (SCLT) grew out of a leadership education program developed in 1993 at Fort Hays State University. SCLT promotes the development of social change agents who address and solve community problems (Crawford et al., 2000); and centers around the principle that it is “what followers and leaders do together for the common good” (Watt, 2009, p.55) that brings about deep change. Similarly, Kezar (2018b) adds, “within all of [her] research on change, leadership emerges as perhaps the most important facilitator” (p.133), and that a leadership that is shared (both top-down and bottom-up) facilitates change the most. Foundational to SCLT is the notion that administrators, chairs, and faculty must work together to effectively alter change to the status quo. SCLT focuses on creating change through collaboration between leaders and followers as they actively focus on bettering society (Watt, 2009). SCLT, when tied to a facilitative three- phase process of initiation, preparation, and interaction, describes how the leader approaches the change process. In the initiation phase, the social change leader demonstrates an increased awareness, willingness, and sense of responsibility to address a group or community issue. In the preparation phase, the social change leader collaborates with others to describe the problem (e.g., alternative to the status quo) and offer a rationale for proposed change. In this phase, coalitions 42 are formed around shared goals. In third phase of interaction, social change leaders demonstrate a willingness to take risks, especially in confronting conflicts when tensions arise between participants. The social change leader acknowledges that tensions may surface from opposing views, values, and attitudes, yet with civility continues to push for action through extended or further collaboration (Watt, 2009). Social change leadership theory leads me to ask how does the role of department chair take on the role of change agent in the realignment of FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures? How does the department chair initiate the change process regarding FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures? How does the department chair prepare for the change process regarding FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures? How does the department chair collaborate with others in addressing FTNTTF needs? How does the department chair navigate tensions regarding realignment of FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures? By employing both the social change model and social change leadership theory in this study, the role of department chair can be examined for the ways in which the chair can be identified as a social change agent who portrays socially minded values and intentionally creates structures that resemble a collaborate or shared leadership approach . Related and in tandem with ICT, these theories guide the analysis of the data and help frame the discussion of findings regarding how the role of department chair influences FTNTTF policies, practices, and cultures. These theories lead me to ask, how does the role of the department chair as change agent lead realignment of FTNTTF polices, practices, and work cultures? Linking the Theories ICT, SCM, and SCLT dovetail on many points, forming a base from which the role of the department chair’s influence on FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures can be examined. 43 First, relationships and relational connections are foundational in the change process. Secondly, all three theories focus on an improvement or alteration to the status quo. All three theories address individual, group, and society domains, and acknowledge that change occurs in all three domains, but that the shared effort as an ensemble is most likely to produce long-term, deep change. In addition, a change agent is needed. ICT notes the leadership role (i.e., change agent) is key throughout the process; SCM focuses on developing socially minded leaders, and underscores the fact that leaders and followers enact change together; and SCLT (similar to SCM) focuses on the development of the social change leader (or change agent) and how they assist others in reaching their full potential in the change process. These theories map to my research question of: what role does the department chair (change agent) play regarding FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures? Lastly, ICT, SCM and SCLT link closely with scholarship on faculty work conditions and department chairs. For example, Kezar and Lester (2009) talk about two levels of change needed to improve non-tenure track faculty work conditions: department and systemic, and Cameron and Quinn (cited in Watt, 2009) address the change process further. Kezar and Lester (2008) point out that the change process most often occurs at the local unit (group) level and more broadly at the community level. Cameron and Quinn (2005) claim that change requires a focus on facilitating consensus (common goals, shared values), reflecting on the impact of decision-making has on others, crafting a narrative about the cultural or social changes by first establishing a rationale, and then developing a strategic or action plan. Cameron and Quinn (2005), although writing about the change process, clearly map onto the role and influence of the department chair as change agent. Their analyses touch on department and organizational systems that involve collaborative leadership, collective decision-making, and a shared focus on 44 how outcomes affect others. Furthermore, in order to reach the intended outcome, chairs must take more active roles (Gmelch, 2004; Gonaim, 2016) in order to perform at their best, empower others, and produce a better organization (Morris & Miller, 2008). Together, these theories lead me to ask, how does the role of department chair influence FTNTTF polices, practices, and work cultures in non-unionized colleges and universities? Chapter Two Conclusion FTNTTF are looking for an advocate, change agent, and leader to help bring change to the structures, systems, and cultures in which they work. The elements of the social change model that are most relevant to this study include: commitment, collegiality, community, and connection. The main issues found in the literature on FTNTTF include: instability, exclusivity, disenfranchisement, and general disregard of their roles and contributions. The issues revealed through the literature review along with the theoretical underpinnings of the social change model frame this study. Several scholars of higher education leadership agree that deep, cultural changes often embedded in matters of policy and practice require the collaboration of administration and faculty (Austin, 1996; Kezar, 2001; Schein, 2010). In particular, department chairs are described as change agents, advocates who foster a willingness in others to work together, and who can facilitate collaboration (Kezar, 2012a, 2012b; Morris & Miller, 2008; Wolverton et al, 2005). Chairs can create new pathways for change and move a department towards more equitable policies, practices, and work cultures for FTNTTF (Kezar & Maxey, 2015; Quinn, 2007). Thus, chairs are presented as central figures for creating and influencing change, through collaborative efforts in partnership with others, and working across organizational structures (Creswell et al., 1990). 45 Furthermore, scholars on faculty work and leadership encourage collegiality and collaboration to bring about change (Gappa et al., 2007; Goniam, 2016), and by establishing social change leadership, the academy can best address faculty gaps and changes occurring in higher education (Baldwin & Chronister, 2001; Kezar & Gerhke, 2013; McCowan, 2017). Kezar, Lester, Carducci, Bertram Gallant, and Contreras McGavin (2007) claim that faculty attribute their success to supportive department chairs, senior faculty, or administrators who provided legitimizing activities and support. They add, “Faculty leadership is necessary for high-quality teaching, innovative curriculum, cutting-edge research, intellectual enrichment, student engagements, improved student outcomes, greater faculty citizenship, a more democratic environment, a campus more responsive to community needs, and other important outcomes” (p. 21). This study centers around the role of the department chair, the mid-level leader best positioned to leverage relationships (vertically and horizontally) in order to improve conditions at their institutions (Amey, 2010; Goniam, 2016; Kezar, 2012a, 2012b; Kezar 2013a, 2013b; Kezar & Lester, 2009; Morris & Miller, 2008; Morrison, 2008; Quinn, 2007; Rhoades & Maitland, 2008; Wergin, 2009). Therefore, in this study, the chair is viewed as the change agent with the most potential to influence and address FTNTTF issues of inclusion and support that could lead to long-term change. The literature collectively suggests chairs play the role of potential change agents needed to influence and bring about deep change for FTNNTF, and that most often institutional change is collaborative, collective, and collegial. While isolated attempts have been made, and on rare occasions local change have occurred (Figlio et al., 2015), FTNTTF continue to express working in unstable, unpredictable, and unequal conditions. These conditions may create unnecessary 46 stress, anxiety, and worry. And although department chairs often are overwhelmed by all the expectations placed on them, they are described as the most influential administrative position (organizationally and relationally) needed to create change in higher education. Yet, having this knowledge has not been enough to enact change regarding FTNTTF policies, practices, and cultures across the board. This study seeks to examine this gap, and to address how higher education institutions can better support its greatest asset, -the faculty. Through an in-depth analysis of surveys, interviews, and documents, I explore how department chairs influence FTNTTF policies, practices, and cultures, especially where alterations to the status quo (e.g., two-tier system, shared governance structures, deep cultural change) is being challenged. In the next chapter I provide a detailed description and rationale for the methodology and design of this study. 47 CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHOD AND DESIGN Studies have shown increased hiring of full-time non-tenure-track faculty compared to tenure-track faculty (AAUP, 2018; Baldwin & Chronister, 2001, Kezar & Maxey, 2014; National Center on Educational Statistics, 2018; Reevy & Deason, 2014; Schuster & Finkelstein, 2006). At the same time, FTNTTF are described as feeling marginalized, disconnected, like second- class citizens, devalued, and disenfranchised (Alleman & Haviland, 2016; Bland et al., 2006; Figlio et al., 2015; Haviland, Alleman & Allen, 2017; Levin & Shafer, 2011; Ott & Cisneros, 2015). With the increased hiring of FTNTTF, administrators are having to re-examine organizational and cultural structures, policies, and practices (Gappa et al., 2006; Haviland et al., 2017; Kezar, 2018), however little progress has been made across the board. Related, studies indicate that decisions made at the local departmental level influence FTNTTF the most (Kezar, 2012b; Quinn, 2007; Rhoades & Maitland, 2008), and studies describe department chairs as advocates, influencers, and change agents (Bowen & Tobin, 2015; Morris & Miller, 2008; Ott & Cisneros, 2015; Quinn, 2007; Wolverton et al., 2005). This study sought to understand how department chairs influence FTNTTF policy, practices, and work cultures in colleges and universities in the United States. The first section of this chapter describes the qualitative nature of the study of department chairs’ influence on FTNTTF work policy, practices, and cultures at colleges and universities. The following section provides a description of the research design, including the rationale for selecting this design along with the benefits and limitations of the chosen design. The remaining sections describe the research context and participants, and the research methodology that include data collection, analysis, and procedures. 48 Research Design The purpose of a qualitative study was to explore and find the meaning of a phenomenon as well as to help explain behaviors and attitudes of individuals or groups as they relate to a social or human problem (Creswell, 2014). In a qualitative study, the researcher interacts with participants in their natural setting (Creswell, 2014) in order to seek understanding of their lived experiences (Rossman & Rollis, 2017). In a qualitative study, the researcher is the instrument that collects, interprets, and analyzes the data (Creswell, 2014). By nature, this was a constructivist, interpretive inquiry that incorporated a variety of data collection methods (semi-structured interviews, questionnaires, and document analysis), that allowed me to gather and analyze how the lived experiences of department chairs influence FTNTTF policy, practices, and work cultures (Creswell, 2014; Lather, 2006). In order to narrow and deepen the scope of this study, I present three case-studies, each representing a different department, but in the same college within the same institution. A case study seeks to understand a larger phenomenon through intensive study of one specific instance (Creswell, 2014; Rossman & Rallis, 2017; Stake, 1995; Yin, 2012). In a case-study approach, I developed an in-depth analysis of each department, centered specifically around the department chair. I collected detailed information about each department, building three cases from within one institution, one college, about one position (department chair), and collected data from each in the same period of time. Using an interpretive approach, the primary methods of data collection involved semi- structured individual interviews, reflection, and document analysis (Creswell, 2014). Interviewing is an effective method used in qualitative studies (Rossman & Rallis, 2017). An interview guide was used to conduct the semi-structured interviews that lasted for one hour. 49 Additional questions were asked throughout the interview in response to new topics of interest brought up by the participants during the conversations. I interpreted and analyzed collected data looking for patterns or themes related to the role department chairs play regarding FTNTTF experiences. In the analysis, I examined the role of department chair for ways by which they might influence others towards possible alterations to FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures. I also looked for patterns or themes related to the role department chairs might play and possible alterations to the culture in which administrators and faculty co-exist and work. Furthermore, I examined themes and patterns related to the role department chairs play regarding FTNTTF policies and practices. Furthermore, my personal experiences and worldview filtered the way by which data was interpreted and analyzed, and therefore are a part of constructing meaning throughout the process (Saldaña, 2015). However, from the start of this inquiry, I made every effort to set aside my own deeply held beliefs and values to be open to new and different viewpoints. Research Context This study examined department chairs and FTNTTF policy, practices, and cultures within an Arts and Letters college at a large R1 university in the United States. The University has both unionized and non-unionized FTNTTF. The University The university in this study is a top-ranked, R1, public university in the mid-west region of the United States. According to the university website, over 45,000 students (graduate and undergraduates) are enrolled. There are over 5,000 faculty and academic staff. The student- faculty ratio at this institution is small, averaging 16:1. 50 The College The Arts and Letters college in this study is a sizable unit offering programs at the graduate and undergraduate levels. The college’s central office houses the various deans who have oversight of college matters (e.g., faculty, staff, research and graduate education, undergraduate education, finance, human resources, communications, technology, and facilities), and are responsible for supporting and connecting the college’s vision and mission with that of the university. The college is home to nine departments that offer a variety of programs at the undergraduate and graduate levels and are headed by a chairperson or director. Each department is responsible for providing vision, support, and oversight for their programs and curriculum, faculty, staff, and students. While the chair or director is the head of their unit, they work closely with college leadership to ensure cohesion of mission and values and are held accountable for a myriad of things including budgets, outcomes, reputation, and the daily life and well-being of the department. They also work with the faculty and staff within their unit to support the success of their programs, to help ensure student success, and to support the work and well-being of one another. Within the college, FTNTTF make-up about half of the faculty. Departments Department chairs are influential and may be key change agents in addressing FTNTTF needs. The literature highlights the influence of department chairs play in the decision-making process regarding FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures (Baldwin & Chronister, 2001; Kezar, 2013b; Morris & Miller, 2008). Data on FTNTTF composition by academic field reports the disciplines with the most FTNTTF are Health Sciences (44.1) and Education (32.6), Humanities (22.2), Social Sciences (16.2) and Fine Arts (17.9) (National Survey of 51 Postsecondary Faculty, 2004 cited in Kezar & Maxey, 2014). This study includes three humanities departments. Department 1 is comprised of 31% FTNTTF; department 2 is comprised of 45% FTNTTF; and department 3 is comprised of 64% FTNTTF. Thus, the departments in this study represent a higher percentage of FTNTTF (50% average across the three departments) in the Humanities at this institution compared to 22.2% nationally. Relatedly, recent studies on FTNTTF report little to no change has been made across the board towards more inclusive and supportive practices (Kezar & Maxey, 2014; Pasque & Carducci, 2015). Examining the role of the department chair in unique departmental cultures may aid in identifying how distinct departmental differences and/or similarities effect how chairs influence FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures. For these reasons, I selected three humanities departments within an Arts and Letters college at a large, public research university. Each humanities department in this study is led by a chair, appointed through the college and in consultation with faculty in the department. The chair has administrative oversight of the department’s operations (budgets, personnel, and curriculum) and is responsible for aligning the work of the department with college and university guidelines and bylaws. Each chair is TTF and is reviewed at regular intervals, not to exceed five years. The chair review is a shared responsibility between department faculty and the dean. Each department has a unique set of mission, values, and goals specific to their discipline that is decided by the faculty in the department, and is in line with the college’s mission, values, and goals. Each department has a set of bylaws that is written and managed through shared- governance approaches by the faculty in the department. Each department in this study offers undergraduate and graduate programs and has a mix of TTF and FTNTTF. 52 Faculty There are two tracks of faculty at this university, tenure-track faculty and non-tenure- track faculty. The work of tenure-track faculty typically includes teaching, research, and service. TTF may work towards tenure and promotion within the rank. TTF have opportunities to advance in their career path, hold influential positions, and serve with voice and vote at varied levels in the department, in the college, and at the university. TTF are eligible to apply for professional development opportunities including research funds and paid leave. The non-tenure track includes, among others, adjuncts, graduate students, postdocs, and full-time non-tenure-track faculty. The latter, FTNTTF, are the focus of this study. There are two types of FTNTTF at this institution. These two types of faculty are described in Appendix A. In many ways their work and rank are similar: they are hired on contracts, not eligible for tenure, have a review process, and may join the faculty union. However, how the two are situated within the organizational structures, their review and promotional processes, contract terms, percentages of work, and professional advancement opportunities as defined within their departments and colleges. FTNTTF type A typically are twelve-month employees. Their teaching load varies and is often paired with service, outreach, and research. This group of FTNTTF have flexibility in their work in that they can negotiate the percentage of time spent on teaching, research, and service. Only the teaching terms of their contract are negotiated with the FTNTTF union. FTNTTF type A may advance within the rank and may apply for a special status that rewards them with a three-year contract. Some refer to this as “tenure light.” However, they cannot apply for an Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval for research from the university’s IRB. They must have a TTF approved as the Primary Investigator (PI) for them to conduct IRB-approved 53 research at this institution. Furthermore, this group of FTNTTF have their own faculty handbook. While they work as faculty, their handbook refers to them as staff. FTNTTF type A are employed at varied levels: assistant dean, associate chair, faculty. Their voting rights vary by department. FTNTTF type B typically are nine-month employees. Their work centers primarily around teaching. Their teaching load is typically three courses per semester, and they usually are not required to perform research or service as part of their contract terms. This group of faulty have less flexibility in their work because the FTNTTF union negotiates much of the teaching portion of the contract terms. However, some negotiation of percentages (teaching, service, research) is possible and may require special arrangements negotiated with their unit(s) and the FTNTTF union. FTNTTF type B may advance within the rank and may apply for special designation status that ensures more stable employment. Furthermore, FTNTTF type B are included in and follow the regular faculty handbook that also applies to TTF. Voting rights vary by department and college. In some contexts, faculty in this group may secure voting rights after three consecutive years of service. FTNTTF type B are most commonly hired at the departmental level and may hold leadership roles mainly secured through service outside of their contract terms. Unions Many schools have unions that handle and negotiate FTNTTF contracts with little to no department chair involvement, whereas non-unionized institutions often address issues of FTNTTF more directly at the local departmental level. Some tactics are similar between union and non-union institutions, however non-unionized institutions may need to rely more on persuasive negotiations when establishing agreements for FTNTTF “until they get more standing 54 in formal governance within [their] institution” (Kezar, 2012b p. 208) and to establish standards and criteria regarding FTNTTF policy, practices, and work cultures through ad-hoc committees, especially where faculty handbooks may not exist, are outdated, or are not enforced (Kezar, 2012b). In some instances, decisions made about FTNTTF may not always be based on established policies (Greenbank, 2006), but rather agreements bargained at the local level (Gehrke & Kezar, 2015), and FTNTTF participation in governance may be more possible in private institutions than in public institutions (Baldwin & Chronister, 2001). At the public institution in this study there is a union specifically for FTNTTF. According to the information on the FTNTTF union website, the union is housed within human resources and serves as a collective bargaining unit between the university and faculty. The purpose of the union is to establish the terms and conditions of employment for the employees covered and to help provide cooperative relations between the employer and employees. Membership is obtained by meeting certain faculty status criteria and requires payment of membership dues. Additionally, the union helps to protect academic freedom and has representative leadership. The FTNTTF union is headed by full-time non-tenure-track faculty. Regardless of if the FTNTTF member elects to become an official member (pays membership dues to be an active member), the teaching percentage of their contract (type A and B) is negotiated with the FTNTTF union. Some FTNTTF may request special terms to their contracts different from those set by the institution and union. In these instances, contract terms are negotiated between the union, the individual faculty member, and often their unit leader or department chair. Participants This study involved a variety of participants. Since the organizational structure of higher education institutions include administrators and faulty (Bowen & Tobin, 2015; Clark, 1963; 55 Kezar & Eckel, 2004), I interviewed department chairs along with tenure-track and FTNTT faculty about the role of department chair in relation to FTNTTF work policies, practices, and cultures housed in one college. This study included department chairs, tenure-track, and FTNTTF because most faculty governance bodies are made up of a majority of tenure-track faculty (Jones, 2011) and because decision-making in higher education is not an isolated endeavor (Gonaim, 2016; Lucas & Associates, 2001; Roper & Deal, 2010). Participants were selected from three disciplines where FTNTTF are more commonly hired (Kezar & Maxey, 2014). Participants were selected to be representative of the institutions’ faculty demographics. As part of the data collection process, a demographic questionnaire was included to gather basic participant information. In the case of tenure-track and FTNTT faculty, the questionnaire verified that participants met the selection criteria. Demographic questions included: sex, age, tenure- track status and rank, department, field of study, years of employment at the institution, years of service as department chair or faculty, percentage of time teaching (teaching load per/year), and percentage of time serving on committees or other related activities. Being mindful of and purposeful in including participant diversity along with incorporating a variety of disciplines augmented the richness and comprehensiveness of this study. Therefore, some participants might have been selected over others in order to reflect institutional demographics and to help ensure a variety of voices, perspectives, and experiences were included in this study. More specifically, the participants for this study included three department chairs, one from each of the selected disciplines where it is more common to have FTNTTF (Kezar & Maxey 2014) along with several tenure-track and full-time non-tenure-track faculty from the same departments as the chairs. Each participant brought a unique perspective to this study. 56 Department chairs provided a first-hand perspective. They were able to speak most directly about their experiences and the challenges that come with serving in this post and offered insights and suggestions about addressing FTNTTF needs. Tenure-track and FTNTT faculty provided unique and valuable perspectives about the role of the department chair based on their views, expectations, and experiences. Including a variety of voices, perspectives and experiences from department chairs, tenure-track, and FTNTT faculty in different disciplines offers a deeper understanding about the role of department chair and their influence on FTNTTF. Through analyzing their experiences and viewpoints collectively about the role of department chair regarding FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures at their institution, a fuller depiction was made about the role of department chairs in relation to FTNTTF. Participant Solicitation Potential participants were identified through personal and extended network connections and were invited to participate via email. Specifically, I emailed each department chair introducing myself, explaining the purpose of my study, and describing the expectations should they agree to participate. For the department chairs who agreed to participate, I asked them to circulate a memo on my behalf to a select few tenure-track and all FTNTT faculty briefly explaining the project, what I needed, and expectations. The chair’s memo was sent to tenure- track they recommended for this study and all FTNTT faculty who have been in the department for at least two years. The selection of the FTNTTF was a first-come, first-serve basis. I set a maximum number of faculty participants at three tenure-track faculty and five FTNTTF from each department. Using the participant selection criteria, 18 participants were selected to be interviewed and consented to the interview. The sample size was deemed acceptable based on 57 Creswell’ (2014) suggestion of 5-25 participants in a qualitative study. To ensure confidentiality, pseudonyms were given to each participant. Demographics of Participants Eighteen individuals participated in this study. Two interviews, however, were coded but not included in the formal analysis. One participant did not know how to answer most of the questions posed and a second participant did not meet the criteria requirements. Of the 16 participants, there was one at the rank of associate dean (with tenure), three department chairpersons (with tenure), four tenure-track faculty (two with tenure, two pre-tenure status), and eight full-time non-tenure track faculty. Of the three departments, two had participants from both TTF and FTNTTF. The third department did not have TTF other than their department chair. The participants pool included seven men and nine women. Of the 16 participants, three FTNTTF (one from each department in this study) serve on the college’s special task force created to examine workplace policies and experiences of FTNTT faculty. Furthermore, some faculty participants are union members and others are not; some are more actively involved in union life for FTNTTF while others are less so. Appendix B provides additional information about the demographics and characteristics of the 16 study participants. Data Collection This section explains how the data was collected for the study. There are four forms of data collection in this study: a demographic questionnaire, an interview protocol, reflective memos, and document reviews. Collecting data from a wide span of individuals and locations using a variety of methods is a strategy known as triangulation, employed to enhance the credibility and rigor of a qualitative study (Maxwell, 2013; Rossman & Rallis, 2017). 58 Prior to inviting department chairs and faculty to participate in the study, permission to solicit these participants, along with my research protocol was approved by Michigan State University’s IRB. I formally invited participants via email to participate in this study. The email provided an introduction and the purpose of the study and interview. It also included the consent to participate form (Appendix B) that was sent in advance or signed the day of the interviews. A brief demographic questionnaire (Appendix C) was administered to participants who consented to participate at the beginning of the interviews. And a semi-structured interview protocol (Appendix D) was used to collect data from chairs and faculty. Participants could decide not to participate at any time during the study. Interviews Once participants were selected, semi-structured, one-hour interviews were scheduled for a time convenient for them. I drafted three sets of interview questions (Appendix D), one for each participant group (chair, tenure-track faculty, and FTNTTF). These open-ended questions were prepared in advance of the interviews and shared with participants at the time of the interviews, but participants’ questions and responses also guided the discussions. I sent out a follow-up reminder the day before each interview and confirmed the receipt of their signed consent forms. The interviews were conducted via Zoom, in a non-distractive location where participants could feel comfortable discussing their lived experiences (Creswell, 2014) . Following each Zoom interview, I sent an email to each participant thanking them for their time and valuable contribution. The interviews for this study were audio-recorded and transcribed using an automated transcription program, as well as recorded via Zoom. The recorded Zoom conversations were also transcribed. After collecting information from department chairs, tenure- track, and FTNTT faculty, I reserved the right to revisit conversations with department chairs for 59 further follow-up. If needed, the second-round interviews with department chairs would be brief (15-20 minutes) and focused on clarification of topics discussed in the interviews. Pilot Test Once the interview protocol was finalized, it was pilot tested with similar participants at a non-unionized institution to ensure comprehension of the questions. Additionally, in the pilot testing I simulated the interview environment by using the same instruments (audio-recorder, transcription program, and Zoom) to ensure they were functioning correctly. Reflective Memos Field notes (in this case reflective memos) can be descriptive and reflective (Creswell, 2014; Rossman & Rallis, 2017). Therefore, I employed reflective memo practices in order to collect other observations, to reflect on my own experiences, thoughts, and to note any new or emerging ideas and questions throughout the data collection and analysis processes. My reflective memos aided in the writing of the chapters of this study, for example in the findings, discussions and implications sections. Institutional Documents Documentation provides written evidence and data about the participants' environments (Creswell, 2014). Examining institutional documents such as hiring and reward policies and practices, handbooks, by-laws, and meeting and committee notes, provided a more comprehensive perspective about FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures at the institution. These documents serve as the third form of data collection for this study. Institutional documents selected for this study helped to identify the role the department chair might play in realignment of FTNTTF work policies, practices, and cultures. Documents such as faculty and chair handbooks and other institutional artifacts provided insight into university, college and 60 department cultures, governance policies, regular assessment expectations and practices, and opportunities for professional development. Data Analysis This study was guided by the principle of being true to the responses of the participants while analyzing and reporting their responses, as well as being true to the documents collected and the environments from which they originate. Reflective memos were written before data collection began and throughout the data collection process. In this way, I employed an iterative process of collecting and analyzing data simultaneously rather than waiting until data collection was completed. The reflective memos were a critical data analysis technique that enabled the researcher to bolster analytical thinking and stimulate their insights into the data (Maxwell, 2013; Rossman & Rallis, 2017; Saldaña, 2013). In addition, I used In Vivo coding (Saldaña, 2013) as a first coding method, using participant responses to create an initial list of codes. From the initial codes, I categorized dominant themes and created a codebook. This was followed by a second round of coding to determine pattern codes found between the rounds of analysis forming major themes and resulting in key findings of this study. Through this coding and re-coding approach, I identified central categories and major themes (Anfara, Brown, & Mangione, 2002). Finally, I employed a member-checking practice, an opportunity for participants to validate, question, or add to the findings by sharing with them my interpretation and analysis of the findings (Rossman & Rallis, 2014). Trustworthiness To help ensure the trustworthiness of qualitative research Lincoln and Guba (1985) offer four criteria: credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. In this study I employed multiple strategies to meet these criteria. Triangulation of data was used to establish 61 credibility through multiple forms of data collection including individual interviews, demographic questionnaire, and document analysis. Purposive sampling and the use of thick description (Carlson, 2010; Geertz, 1973) of excerpts from interview transcripts conveyed the perspectives of each of the participants and was used to support the findings of the study and aid in transferability. The use of code-recode strategies described above and the creation of an audit trail through careful documentation of observation and interview notes, artifacts, audio recordings and interpretive memos strengthen dependability (Carlson, 2010). Also, I engaged in multiple levels of member checking with participants to allow them to identify and ensure accuracy. Throughout the process, I engaged in reflexivity in order to remain open about assumptions and ideas as they emerged during the data collection, analysis, and interpretation process. Positionality Positionality provides a unique lens that influences all aspects of this study. I understand that I bring unique values, assumptions, and biases (Lattuca & Stark, 2007) from my own lived experiences. As a female faculty/administrator on a full-time non-tenure-track appointment at a non-unionized university, I understand and am aware of the policies, practices, and work cultures for FTNTTF, and the feelings and challenges described in the literature review. At the same time, while I am a mid-level administrator, I lack understanding of the experiences of department chairs in higher education. In this study, I sought to understand their experiences, how they navigate the change in faculty composition at their institution, how decisions are made around the issue, and how they envision effective approaches to examining and re-aligning FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures. I hold the view that being both an insider and outsider fostered a more balanced study (Obasi, 2014). 62 Chapter Three Conclusion In this chapter, I described the methodology and design of this study, including rationale for its qualitative nature and the selected methods for data collection and analysis processes. As I sought to gain understanding about the role department chairs play regarding FTNTTF work policies, practices, and cultures in non-unionized U.S. institutions, participant demographic information, interview responses along with institutional documents and other artifacts, as well as reflective memos were used in this qualitative, constructivist, interpretive study. I concluded by describing how I ensured trustworthiness and acknowledged my positionality to the study. In the remaining chapters I discuss the findings of this study, followed by implications and suggestions for future research related to the role of department chairs as change agents. Specifically, matters regarding FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures, and how higher education navigates the change process are explored. 63 CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS Organizationally, departments are the basic unit for faculty (Bowen & Tobin, 2015), the local bargaining units where contract terms are determined (Rhoades & Maitland, 2008), and the location where middle-level leadership is needed to bring about cultural change called for by the university (Quinn, 2007). Additionally, the literature on FTNTTF indicates the need for a change agent (Kezar, 2013a; Miller & Morris, 2008), and argues that the role of department chair “contribute[s] significantly to the academic organization by serving and supporting the primary functions of teaching, research, and service” (Rosser, 2004a, p. 318). The chair is essential in improving the working conditions at the departmental level by creating a more inclusive climate for FTNTTF through a departmental infrastructure that supports their teaching, provides clerical support, and provides an advocate or mentoring structure. These conditions are essential “even in resource constrained environments” (Kezar, 2013a p. 590). Department chairs are uniquely positioned to lead in advancing efforts that address FTNTTF workplace needs. The purpose of the study is to explore how the role of department chair influences policy, practice, and cultural changes regarding full-time non-tenure track faculty work in higher education. The study was guided by the following research question: What role does the department chair play (e.g., establishing, managing, changing) regarding FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures? The sub-research questions included: 1. What role does the department chair play in the processes or approaches employed at the department level in developing a collegial culture regarding FTNTTF? 64 2. What role does the department chair play in the processes or approaches employed at the department level in enacting shared-governance practices and policies (e.g., departmental, college, institutional levels) regarding FTNTTF? 3. What role does the department chair play in the processes or approaches employed at the department level regarding the development and implementation of assessment of policies and practices (e.g., departmental, college, institutional levels) related to FTNTTF? 4. What role does the department chair play in the processes or approaches employed at the department level related to professional development for FTNTTF? This chapter reports the findings of the study, which are arranged by departments in a case study approach, and major themes that were aggregated using in-vivo coding processes (Cresswell, 2014; Saldaña, 2013). First, I briefly note the findings on key institutional documents to help situate the departmental findings that follow. Then, I provide a more robust report on the findings by department including the major themes identified. This is followed by a section that explicitly answers the research questions looking across the departmental data. Documents Several documents were included in the data analysis process. The documents collected and studied include university, college, and department bylaws, faculty handbooks and resources, union documents, faculty review forms, and websites on special initiatives related to faculty, as well as other items participants shared. 65 Bylaws Of most benefit to the analysis were the university, college, and department bylaws. The bylaws provide a structure and description for each unit’s policies and practices. The bylaws serve both to demonstrate organizational structures and to communicate expectations more formally. They also serve as a means by which faculty can come together to address issues such as organizational and structural changes, gaps processes, clarification of committee membership, faculty review processes, and curriculum. At the time of data collection, department bylaws were under revision following a charge from the college leadership to review and update policies and practices. Some departments were further along in the process than others, however, all were making significant changes to organizational and committee structures, including membership, voting rights, faculty review processes, and other changes in efforts to be up-to-date, clear, transparent, and inclusive. Department chairs are responsible for overseeing the bylaws revision process for their department. The College. The college website has information and resources for faculty, staff, and students. It links faculty to information about research, teaching, and advising resources. It also links to professional funding opportunities, faculty academic development, and the college’s bylaws. The college bylaws, accessible online and last revised in May of 2019, describe faculty and student membership, the college’s organization, function, and procedures, including various committees with elected and appointed membership representative of the college and its members. There is language about and links to faculty review and promotion protocols. The college bylaws describe the university council and various standing university committees (college advisory committee, college graduate committee, faculty reappointment committees, 66 inclusive practices committee, and special committees) and grievance and hearing procedures. There is also a brief section on the review and amendments process to the college bylaws. The college bylaws define departments as the basic administrative unit of teaching, research, service, outreach and engagement within the college. The college bylaws note that the chair/director duties and responsibilities shall be in accordance with the university bylaws, which in section 2.1.2.1 states: A department chairperson or school director serves as the chief representative of his or her department or school within the University. He or she is responsible for the unit’s educational, research, and service programs—including the outreach components of all three; budgetary matters, academic facilities, and personnel matters, taking into account the advisory procedures of the unit. The chairperson or director has a special obligation to build a department or school strong in scholarship, teaching capacity, and service. Furthermore, the college bylaws note that chairs are to be reviewed at regular intervals not to exceed five years, and that the chair review is a shared responsibility between department faculty and the dean. Themes Three themes emerged from the data about department chairs and FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures. The three themes are: call for clarity and transparency; commitment to community; and change opportunities, costs, and challenges. These three themes are common across the three departments and will be addressed later within each department section, including comparisons of how departments navigated these areas. 67 Theme 1: Call for Clarity and Transparency Clarity and transparency (Appendix F) were top of the list in participant comments. Administrative leaders and faculty of all ranks expressed the need for clarity and transparency for FTNTTF roles, expectations, processes, and opportunities. Clarity and transparency can be addressed by looking at formal structures like policies (e.g., bylaws, department organization, governance structures) that organize and communicate FTNTTF work expectations and practices. Participants reported that concentrated and continued efforts on this front are needed. FTNTTF Roles and Respect. According to participants, knowing who FTNTTF are and the value of their work is critical. Several participants indicated that a core “lack of understanding” exists around the FTNTTF role. Chairs reported concentrated and continued efforts on this front are needed to help them in their role to better understand and lead this unique group of faculty. FTNTTF Policies and Practices. Participants expressed that much confusion and a lack of understanding not only exists around the role and title of FTNTTF, but that there is a lack of clarity and transparency nearly everywhere in the university. All the participants acknowledged the need for clarity and transparency of systems and structures that align, accurately describe, and support FTNTTF roles and work. Mostly, participants described unclear or non-existing FTNTTF policies and structures, and that clear(er) policies are needed to help guide and communicate the role and work of FTNTTF. Whereas the role and work of TTF is extensively detailed at the university, college, and departmental levels, the same cannot be said for FTNTTF. The department chairs and faculty expressed concern over a lack of clarity and transparency about FTNTTF policies, practices, and cultures. While participants expressed the need for more clear and transparent policies and practices, undertaking efforts to change policy 68 requires the involvement of those with power. However, due to the power imbalances in higher education that often limit FTNTTF, change efforts on this front will need to be shared between the university and college administrators, the department chair, and the faculty. FTNTTF Inequities. According to the participants, clarity and transparency is needed on matters of faculty workload expectations, pay, professional development, and career advancement opportunities. Inequities with workload, especially in the area of “service” or “extras” is prevalent. If an employee is taking on more work and responsibility without some sort of compensation for it, there is an imbalance. In fact, Participant 1, TTF and a college leader, shared in her interview that FTNTTF: Have been hired to teach, so they can free up the tenure stream faculty to do research. But you’re paying the [tenure] stream faculty more, right. And you’re paying the [FTNTTF] less, but as they take on more work, that's not fair. You can’t just pile it on and not pay them more, or you have to reduce the teaching, right? So, we’re at a point where we have to figure that out. The chairs in this study share these concerns about inequities for FTNTTF and were open about how they leverage their decision-making power at the departmental level to offer creative solutions to reward, incentivize, and support the work of FTNTTF. Theme 2: Commitment to Community Having “community” can foster a sense of belonging, valorizing all its members, creating a supportive and inclusive environment. Community can be demonstrated in formal and informal ways. Formal examples of community include organizational and governance structures such as bylaws and committees. According to participants, formal community bodies help to answer the questions of: Who can participate? Who can lead? Who can decide? Who can vote? Informal 69 examples of community include attitudes, how we think about others, choices we make, and how we act and behave towards others. Informal communication patterns include, among other things, how one chooses to acknowledge (or ignore) others, demonstrating behavior that is passive or aggressive, and engaging directly or indirectly with others. Formal and informal structures and practices often are formed from the values and attitudes of a community’s members and come together to create a culture. Culture consists of the norms, attitudes, and behaviors that may be inclusive, exclusive, supportive, unsupportive, active, or passive. The “community” of each department in this study directly relates to the type of culture cultivated by its members. Theme 3: Change Opportunities, Costs, and Challenges Participants in this study cited the need for changes in FTNTTF workplace policies, practices, and cultures. In fact, every participant in the study referenced “change” to FTNTTF work and working conditions in one way or another. In regards to change, participants shared, “[it] is needed,” “we are shifting,” “in a shift moment,” “we are transitioning,” “is in process,” “get on board,” and even “I’m a change agent.” This study found that there can be a variety of opportunities to address FTNTTF working conditions and that the chair and others likely play an essential role in the process, especially given the costs and challenges associated with navigating changes to the status quo. Participants shared a variety of venues where changes in FTNTTF workplace policies, practices, and cultures could occur. Some of those venues included faculty governance structures, bylaws and handbooks, faculty contracts, physical workspaces, FTNTTF nomenclature, the review processes and reward systems, professional development to aid in career advancement, and improved communication. Department chairs and faculty discussed the 70 cost and challenges that accompany change efforts. Participant 1, an associate dean, hopes that the college and departments can make changes that address the “bullying in academia” that comes from the “great hierarchies of academia.” In efforts to do so, it is likely that chairs and others involved in the change process will encounter challenges due to systemic structures and traditions, available recourses, and interpersonal dynamics. Systemic Structures and Traditions. One challenge associated with change to FTNTTF policies, practices, and cultures is the long-standing structures and traditions of higher education. For example, the two-tier system that some perceive as privileging the tenure-track faculty by providing them more protections, freedoms, and power compared to FTNTTF. Other long- standing structures and traditions include complex funding models and budget structures, outdated policies and practices that help to define faculty work (teaching, research, service), and reward structures. Resources. Another challenge participants associated with efforts to change FTNTTF policies, practices, and cultures is resources such as time, energy, and money. Participants in this study described the labor-intensive nature that comes with change efforts and its effects on them personally. Chairs reported feeling stressed because of the added work and demands required of them in leading change efforts to revise departmental bylaws that would result in more inclusive and support structures for FTNTTF. Faculty (TTF and FTNTTF), in general, talked about feeling “exhausted” from the extra work and tension-filled discussions. FTNTTF participants shared they feel “overwhelmed” and “overtaxed” because they are already doing more than their contracts state they should be, in order to pay their bills, and because they feel pressure to say “yes.” Added to this is the challenge of working through bylaw revisions that directly impact their work in a sometimes not-so-friendly environment. 71 Interpersonal Dynamics. A third challenge participants associated with change regarding FTNTTF policies, practices, and cultures is people and their individual personalities, interests, values, opinions, ideas, and preferences. Besides change being “inevitable” and the process labor-intensive, working across differences (rank, ideas, preferences, personalities) presents challenges for chairs. When leading change efforts, chairs are faced with navigating the costs and challenges associated with change that come from every direction: systemic structures and traditional practices, resources, and individual attributes. In leading efforts to help address change related to FTNTTF polices, practices, and cultures, chairs often are working with limited resources and competing perspectives, while balancing the expectations of those they lead and those to whom they report. Department One This Humanities department is home to several degree programs at the undergraduate and graduate levels, with 45 faculty and eight staff members. Of the 45 faculty, 14 are FTNTTF. Most FTNTTF in this department are primarily teaching faculty, but a small few have negotiated some service and research into their contracts. Senior TTF in the department hold key positions and have much of the voting power. The FTNTTF are limited in their voting power. The current chair, Sally, advanced from within the department and is in her third year as interim chair. Sally started as FTNTTF in the department over ten years ago and shortly thereafter moved to a tenure-track line. After three failed chair searches, Sally will leave the position when a new hire from outside of the department assumes the chair post in Fall 2021. According to the department website, the department aims to “provide[s] an empowering environment where the inherent worth and dignity of all people are respected and celebrated.” It 72 lists their mission, vision, and values as, “mindful of the past, we contemplate and create a better future.” Department One Bylaws The department bylaws outline and describe the membership, organization, committee structure, faculty evaluation procedures, and voting procedures of this unit. According to the department bylaws, revised May 2020, faculty include TTF, FTNTTF, and other designated, persons (visiting professors, adjuncts, emeriti, and affiliated faculty). Faculty voting rights are afforded to TTF and FTNTTF who have been in the department at least three consecutive years. FTNTTF may not vote on matters related to renewal, promotion, and tenure. Department meetings are to be held at least once during each semester. Others may attend (e.g., staff) with voice but no vote. Faculty may submit agenda items to the department’s advisory committee for their consideration. A quorum (50%) is necessary to conduct official business, and a parliamentarian shall serve to ensure conduct set forth in Robert’s Rules of Order. The bylaws state that TTF typically teach two courses each semester and have additional research and service responsibilities. The chair may approve special arrangements, such as a course release, for TTF with administrative positions. Students who are declared majors/minors, including graduate students, are considered constituent members. Students may be elected to serve as voting members on standing committees. The various directors, coordinators, and area heads are appointed and reviewed by the chair in consultation with the department’s advisory committee. Some of these posts have term 73 limits while others do not. Compensation for serving in these roles is negotiated with the chair and the college. Additionally, there are several standing committees (educational policy, faculty affairs, faculty mentoring, graduate committee, peer review committee, and a search committee) composed of elected and appointed faculty that serve in an advisory role to the chair. The faculty membership is determined by the department chair in consultation with the chair advisory committee, and members serve a two-year term. Some departmental committee memberships limit the faculty member’s ability to serve on other committees. For example, no faculty may serve concurrently as a voting member on the chair’s advisory committee, educational policy committee, or faculty affairs committee. Each standing committee is expected to meet regularly, take minutes, and distribute minutes within five working days of approval by the committee to the faculty and staff of the department. The bylaws also include a section on grievance and hearing procedures that are to align with the grievance hearing policies set forth by the university. The college advisory and curriculum committees allow for an elected TTF or FTNTTF representative. Both have a two-year term limit. The college undergraduate committee representative is selected by the chair in consultation with the department advisory committee. The college graduate committee department liaison is the director of graduate studies. Each of these representatives is expected to attend the scheduled meetings and report back to the department. The bylaws extensively cover the review processes for faculty. There is a section for TTF and specific sections for FTNTTF by type (A or B). For the latter, the bylaws describe in detail the review timeline, steps, and required materials. This includes submitting a dossier in advance of meeting with the chair, arranging for peer reviews, and submitting evaluation reports. 74 Lastly, the bylaws for Department One cover procedures for voting and amending the bylaws. The bylaws specify that department business is to be decided by means of a vote. Requests to amend and revise the bylaws must be submitted to the department faculty affairs committee. Department bylaws are to be reviewed every three years. Department One Chair Section 3.2 of the department bylaws details the responsibilities, functions, selection, and review of the chair. The chair serves as the chief administrative officer for the unit. The chair is responsible for the oversight of the educational, research, and service missions of the department. This includes budgets, academic programming, physical facilities, and personnel. The chair is expected to develop and implement a strategic plan that encourages an environment of excellence and support for faculty, staff, and students of the department. The chair is to encourage free and open exchange among the faculty, staff, and students. The chair is to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion. The chair is to develop, maintain, and facilitate fundraising within the university and beyond. However, the chair may delegate a set of responsibilities to the associate chair. The chair appoints department faculty to serve vacant positions among the individual administrative roles when openings occur within the department. The chair consults with the department advisory committee to appoint faculty to fill vacant positions on committees that do not require an election process. The chair selection and review processes are a shared responsibility of the department’s advisory committee, in consultation with the voting faculty, and the dean of the college. Chair reviews shall take place in intervals not to exceed five years, and there are not term limits to the post. Other Departmental Leaders. In addition to the chair, there is an associate chair, a director of graduate studies, various coordinators, directors, and area heads. The associate chair 75 post, added in academic 2020-2021, serves at the invitation of the chair (in consultation with the department advisory committee), manages tasks as determined by the chair, and may not serve in other key leadership roles in the department. The compensation for this post is determined by the chair in consultation with college leaders. The appointment of associate chair is for a three-year term with an option to continue. This position is reviewed by the chair who consults with the department’s advisory committee and voting faculty to determine procedures and with term intervals not to exceed three years. Chair Advisory Committee The department Chair Advisory Committee (CAC) is composed of six faculty: four voting members from each of the areas of the department, one untenured TTF, and one FTNTTF. Neither the department chair nor associate chair may serve on this committee. This committee provides counsel to the chair, prepares the agenda and makes arrangements for the department meeting in cooperation with the chair, serves as a deliberative body which recommends actions and policies to the chair, coordinates all department nominations and elections, and advises the chair on faculty appointments to standing and ad-hoc committees. Untenured TTF and FTNTTF are limited to one year and no more than two consecutive terms. Department One Themes In this section I report the findings of the three themes that emerged from the data specific to Department One: call for clarity and transparency, commitment to community, and change opportunities, costs and challenges. Within each theme, I focus on how participants in this department discussed the role of the chair and how it may influence FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures. 76 Theme 1: Call for Clarity and Transparency. Sally, the department chair, and all the faculty in Department One expressed the need for clarity and transparency for FTNTTF roles, expectations, processes, and opportunities. FTNTTF Roles and Respect. Sally shared, “I really think we need to start thinking about this group of faculty not as non-tenure stream, faculty lite, but as a kind of different sort.” Sally went on to add, “basically people who are pursuing their needs and [need] to be treated as human beings, professionals…there needs to be some understanding of sanity....and mutual respect.” For this chair, not only is she “expected” to “encourage an environment of excellent” and “free and open exchange,” while “promoting” diversity, equity, and inclusion (per the department bylaws) in her role as chair, but she personally believes that FTNTTF need to be viewed as regular faculty, treated as equals and with respect, and included more in the life and functions of the department. Participant 10 (FTNTTF) believes that “many faculty devote their time to teaching and teaching is viewed as secondary to research.” She added that while “academia in general is changing, it also seems like it’s been tenure-system first and most of those folks have benefited and we’re always second.” She also shared that, “another way to characterize marginalization is space” and at one point she shared an office space with graduate students. “I thought, what more can you do to insult me...graduate students, I guess, have more privilege than [FTNTTF].” Now, thanks to her chair, she has an office to herself. She shared that this action by her chair has helped to clarify her role (distinguish her as a FTNTTF versus graduate student) and not be “viewed as secondary,” but rather as a respected colleague in the department. FTNTTF Policies and Practices. Sally recognized that “We do not yet have a codified review process for FTNTTF” and that part of the issue is faculty refusing to serve on committees 77 to do the necessary work. For Sally to attempt any progress in revising current departmental structures or guidelines, she must work through the CAC, which is the deliberative body for changes to departmental policies. She added, “I haven’t figured out how to get the work done to get these review things into the bylaws. Our review process is ad-hoc which drives me insane.” She also described their department’s old organizational chart as horizontal, with everyone answering to the chair, and “this resulting in bullying.” While she desires to help lead change efforts to FTNTTF policies and practices, she is also at a loss of how to make any progress when the system in place limits what she can do. The faculty participants in this department described the FTNTTF contract and review processes and practices as “mysterious,” “contradictory,” and producing much “trauma.” One participant in this department, in reference to revising their bylaws, shared, “There have been things that have needed to shift and change” but “even those little changes rile people up.” And another member of the department added that the “old system favored one group over the other,” that during the revision process “senior faculty closed ranks,” and that FTNTTF members are “still getting the short end,” especially with “who is eligible to vote.” In fact, while all faculty in this department now have a voice, only TTF and some more senior FTNTTF members have voting privileges. Yet despite the ongoing challenges, Participant 6 believes the chair is “trying to put bylaws and policies in place so that policy drives the conversations” and not personalities. Both FTNTTF participants in this department credit their chair for negotiating their teaching and service percentages. Participant 9, a FTNTTF member, in reference to contracts said, “It’s very inconsistent” and the division of work is “blurry.” For her, she relied on her chair to help clarify her work and negotiate clearer contract terms to better align with what she is 78 doing. As a result of the chair’s success in negotiating new contract terms, Participant 9 said this made her “feel[s] like I have a choice,” and those choices align her teaching, research, and service to “all things that I feel very passionate about.” Similarly, the other FTNTTF participant in the department said every year her chair has been able to craft contract conditions that give “flexibility” and opportunity for growth. FTNTTF Inequities. One of the first things Sally expressed in her interview was concern for the complexities within the FTNTTF rank (type A and B), the union “constraints” on faculty contracts, and being able to negotiate work percentages. As chair, she tries to creatively work around these challenges. For her, she shared, “One way I support my faculty is not asking them to do more work for no extra pay. I think that’s important.” She said when she became chair, “I decided to offer the same research funding to [FTNTTF] that we do to [TTF].” Sally was clear on what she could and could not do as chair but looks for ways she might be able to influence and enact change to FTNTTF inequities. The faculty participants described the challenges and frustrations they face in taking on more work without compensation and how their chair has responded to the working conditions and inequities for FTNTTF. Sympathetic to the issue, Participant 6, TTF, expressed, “We're essentially all equal except how we work and get paid. They try to codify and pretend it's normal” but “my [FTNTTF] colleagues are in jobs forever, doing the same work I am for significantly less pay.” Then he added, “really, both groups are overtaxed. We’re all getting hurt. It’s all [a] fraud.” For him, he is willing to join the chair in efforts to address pay inequities and feeling overworked but is not sure where to begin. 79 In talking about workload inequities, Participant 10, FTNTTF (type B) shared that in her view, “there’s not been a lot of open conversations” about rethinking faculty roles and workload “disparities.” In fact, she shared that: The pressure I feel is that I need to change my working style and take on more responsibility...I have a full-time job. I work full-time. Um, I work six days a week. I couldn't work seven. My mental health requires that I demand that I take one day...I guess I feel myself push back on that. In her department she feels, “We have [TTF] who are kind of bullyish” and that “maybe sometimes [FTNTTF] can be accommodated instead of just tenure-system all the time.” This participant added that “we need to talk about salary inequities” but when the topic comes up, the conversation breaks down to, “It's like, well, we don’t have a budget.” And even though her chair has been able to negotiate contract terms that are more aligned to her work and interests, the chair has not been able to influence the disparity in pay other than rewarding extra work by approving professional development funding and opportunities. And when it comes to professional development, Participant 9, FTNTTF, expressed feeling “taken care of” in terms of funding available to travel. She also shared that she “gets research money” all because [her chair] arranges it. However, she shared that support is unequal, and that: I do feel that kind of support from [the chair] and it's not across the board and that's a touchy thing too like some people have it, and some people don't have it...It feels really uncomfortable when that comes up. Similarly, Participant 10, also a FTNTTF, added that she feels that professional development opportunities are “pretty possible” via “lots of workshops” and that she has been 80 fortunate to have “lots of people willing to mentor” her in the process. However, in response to a teaching and leadership professional development opportunity for which she was selected she said, “We do most of the teaching in the department...We are at the front lines of students.” But when “tenure-track need leadership for tenure, they need the award...There is a bias towards trying to make, give those opportunities to [the] tenure system.” In these instances, this FTNTTF relies on her chair to advocate on her behalf as to the equal importance a leadership training opportunity may have for FTNTTF promotion. In Department One, participants described the role of the chair as potentially influencing how FTNTTF are acknowledged as “professionals” and recognized as “human beings.”. They also described the role of the chair as potentially influencing efforts to codify outdated policies at the department level that impact FTNTTF and that might also address “bullying” between faculty ranks. However, the chair does not act alone in efforts to address FTNTTF needs and most likely will require collaboration with others (some with differing views and opinions about FTNTTF) in attempts to change FTNTTF policies and practices. Participants in this department also described the role of the chair as potentially influencing workload inequities by not asking FTNTTF to do extra work without pay or some form of compensation and by “taking care of” FTNTTF by approving important opportunities for professional growth . Theme 2: Commitment to Community. Participants from this department described the department as complex with “wildly different” areas of expertise, being in crisis with “echoes of apartheid,” feeling chaotic, feeling “overtaxed,” and their leadership was described as in transition. There is division among the faculty, both within the TTF rank, and between TTF and FTNTTF. Senior TTF hold key positions and have much of the voting power. The FTNTTF are limited in their voting power. Participants in this department reported that their department needs 81 to find ways to create equity and a sense of community. After three failed chair searches, a new hire from outside of the department will assume the chair post in Fall 2021. Sally, in reflecting on her role as chair and in discussing her role in creating a sense of community acknowledged a more respectful and inclusive community for FTNTTF is needed in her department. She shared that the FTNTTF are “valuable professionals” but many “don’t like to do extra work for no pay.” She added that many of the old ways of doing things were “dehumanizing” for FTNNTF, and that changes need to be made to involve them more. She shared, “[I] just advise and I try to be available for this group of faculty.” She noted that for FTNTTF. “they go long periods of time without being seen,” and "it's hard to meet people.” In her view, pairing FTNTTF “with a partner who's a very high-status tenure stream partner...I think is really crucial to [FTNTTF].” One action she takes is encouraging FTNTTF to “find partners with more prestige” and to “piggyback a bit to find opportunities” to connect through collaborative work projects. By doing so, she hopes to build a stronger department that also reflects the aim of the department to “provide[s] an empowering environment where the inherent worth and dignity of all people are respected and celebrated” (department website). Sally is also aware that faculty find and desire community in different ways. Some faculty expect the chair to provide opportunities to create community. Other faculty expect the chair to create community, while other faculty are content with finding community on their own. Participant 10, FTNTTF, expressed “feeling pretty alone.” “Most of my relationships are with students.”. This participant, who at one time shared office space with graduate students, said her department chair helped to relocate her to her own office space, making her feel more like faculty in the department. She added that in her view, “the primary way I think...for faculty to build relationships is through committee work or service work. We don't have any other ways 82 to develop relationships.” And for her, “I did a lot of service, service as you know, committee work. All of these are all things that I feel very passionate about.” This FTNTTF is appreciative that the chair was open and able to renegotiate her contract terms, reducing the amount of teaching percentage and increasing the service/research percentage. The chair’s advocating for contract changes to include more service and committee work (in exchange for less teaching responsibilities) may open avenues for this FTNTTF to develop relationships and build a sense of community with others through things she is also passionate about. Participant 9, another FTNTTF member, shared that “I really love my job working with students. I wouldn't say that being a part of the faculty is as enjoyable as it could be. I wouldn't say there's the kind of camaraderie or cohesion that there could be.” For her, “it always feels like there’s a lot of drama…It’s not personal, but it would be nice to have a stronger department that feels like we’re all moving in the same direction and that kind of thing.” Unlike her colleague who prefers to connect with others through work projects, this participant expressed the need for department leadership to organize social events to help build community in the department. For her, the occasional pizza party or department cook-out could provide faculty the opportunity to engage with one another as human beings and fellow citizens of this world, and to help foster kindness and some sense of commonality. And Participant 5, TTF, said there is a bigger network outside of the university where she finds more similarity with colleagues in her discipline than in the department. For her, she is content with having a community elsewhere. The only caveat for her could be needing the chair’s approval for expense reports that reimburse her for things like membership in professional organizations, conference travel, or other research related endeavors. 83 In Department One, participants described the role of the chair as potentially influencing how FTNTTF are viewed as valuable members of the departmental community. One way this was done was through pairing FTNTTF with others on collaborative projects and via committee work when possible. Participants in this department looked to the chair to advocate for basic needs, like securing office space. And for one participant, they believe the chair is responsible for organizing social events that could build a much-needed sense of community beyond work- related endeavors. Participants in Department One also looked to the chair as a potential influence to help create a more equitable and kinder working environment instead of the “lonely,” “chaotic,” and “drama[filled]” one described by some participants. Despite where Sally has been able to foster and encourage a sense of community for FTNTTF, strong personalities of other more senior faculty in the department have shown to be obstacles to her, challenging her efforts in creating a more respectful and inclusive workplace for all. Theme 3: Change Opportunities, Costs, and Challenges. As chair, according to the department bylaws, Sally is expected to develop and implement a strategic plan that encourages an environment of excellence and support for faculty (that includes FTNTTF), to encourage free and open exchange among faculty (that includes FTNTTF), and to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion (that includes FTNTTF). Sally and the faculty participants in Department One talked about the cost and challenges they experienced when revising departmental bylaws to reflect more supportive and inclusive practices. They also described challenges they face in working with limited resources and across differences in attempts to create a more equitable and inclusive workplace. Systemic Structures and Traditions. Sally, when talking about changes underway to make their departmental bylaws more inclusive, and the FTNTTF review process clearer, 84 including making the processes more reflective and supportive of FTNTTF work, referred to these changes as “radical change.” As chair she was asked to lead efforts to formally change who is eligible to attend department meetings, serve on committees, vote in department matters, or simply put, who constitutes faculty. Participant 10, a more senior FTNTTF in this department, shared that “academia in general is changing,” pointing out the question all higher education is faced with answering, who constitutes faculty? For her, the question is not a new one, nor does she understand why many TTF are resistant to the change or even discussing it. Participant 5, TTF, in sharing about the current work on revising their bylaws said, “There have been things that have needed to shift and change” and “even those little changes rile people up.” She supports the change efforts to the bylaws and is sympathetic to the stress the process has added to the chair. And Participant 6, also TTF, believes that the “old system favored one group over others” and believes that the chair should push faculty to change the policy in order for policy to drivee the process, rather than the person or the chair. In his view, this would “free the chair to do other things,” like engage outside the department more to help garner necessary resources. While this shift moment appears to be putting pressure on everyone, ultimately the chair is responsible for navigating the process. And in the process, Sally finds herself challenged by structures and other dynamics associated with change that are beyond her control. Resources. Sally described the challenges she faces as chair when it comes to resources and the budget. Sally said, “It's really messy. There is no relationship between money and what you're doing. It’s like really weird.” And as chair, everyone is always asking her for money. Sally is also sympathetic to the issue of FTNTTF workload and pay inequities and does what she can to support and reward their work. She shared that FTNTTF: 85 Are already working in the summer, so if I give them extra things to do in the summer you can't pay them more, which means that typically we don't do that because that’s a crappy thing to do. One way I support my faculty is [to] not ask them to do more work for no extra thing. I think that's important. I have actually made my research money much more available to people. Participant 10 is grateful to have a chair like Sally who does not ask her to do more without pay and provides professional development funding (when she can) for doing extra work. However, she still feels pressured to “change my working style and take on more responsibility” in order to keep her job and earn good reviews in hopes of a promotion that includes a pay increase. Interpersonal Dynamics. Sally shared that as chair, she faces challenges with motivating individuals to embrace and invest in the change efforts with her, TTF and FTNTTF alike. She shared about FTNTTF who “basically refuse to do service” because it is not in their contract and “it's a real bone of contention.” She encourages this group of faculty to engage in other departmental activities beyond teaching, but realizes the choice is theirs in the end. Another faculty participant in the department shared that when revising their bylaws, the senior TTF “closed ranks” in the process, keeping the voting power in their unit to only TTF and very few FTNTTF, even though there are fewer TTF than FTNTTF in the department overall. All the while, Sally is willing and committed to fulfilling the expectations that come with the post and to the change efforts regarding FTNTTF. Even when it is not easy, Sally is willing “to do the hard work,” to work across differences, and through tense discussions with long-time colleagues in order to make the necessary “radical” changes. 86 In Department One, participants described the role of the chair as potentially influencing change regarding FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures. They also acknowledged that with change efforts, like the change in faculty type across higher education which to one participant in this department “favors” one group (TTF) over another (FTNTTF), there are challenges, especially for the chair. As one participant in this department shared, change riles people up. And as relayed by participants, sometimes more senior faculty close ranks in response to efforts to preserve the status quo. Faculty often look to the chair to manage and lead. In the case of Department One, members look to Sally for deep change efforts, across differing views and with limited budgets. Furthermore, the faculty, including the chair, reported feeling overworked and stressed. The expressed sometimes feeling at a loss of what to do both generally and when leading “radical change” efforts. Department One Summary The bylaws in this department were last revised May 2020. Although there have been significant changes to the document, participants shared that some revisions are yet to be completed. Related, one new item in the governance structure for this department is the position of associate chair who serves at the pleasure of the chair. However, only a TTF can fill this post. Faculty in this department, when it comes to the role of chair and FTNTTF inequities, view their chair as sympathetic, supportive, but limited in being able to address the matter fully. Some approaches to solving inequities require a budget and resources. However, while Sally has the authority to allocate and approve funding at the department level, her influence and decision- making power as chair is bound by powers beyond the post, leaving her to appear selective and partial. 87 Department Two This Humanities department also is home to several degree programs at the undergraduate and graduate levels. According to the department chair, they have a producing and a teaching season with department operations running twelve months of the year. They have traditional classroom teaching and laboratory and experiential learning. This department is a combination of a university unit with a nonprofit unit. There are 29 faculty, 13 of whom are FTNTTF, or nearly half. There are also seven affiliated faculty. Most FTNTTF in this department are Faculty A, where they have various percentages of teaching, research, and service. The current chair, Barry, was hired from outside of the university and has previous experience serving as a department chair. His predecessor held the post for a decade and continues as TTF in the department. According to the department website, the department is at its “best when it incites or excites… [their works] provoke action. Challenge complacency. Demand your attention.” Department Two includes in their mission statement “a promise to challenge the traditional in order to create something new and to provide enhanced understanding of current issues.” Department Two Bylaws The department bylaws outline and describe the membership, organization, terms of employment, and faculty evaluation procedures. There is also a brief section on mentoring for junior TTF and responsibilities for area heads. According to the department bylaws, under revision 2020-2021, faculty and students are considered constituent members. All regular faculty (TTF and FTNTTF) have voting rights along with student members who are in good academic standing. 88 Section 3 on faculty governance defines the department’s composition as faculty with student representation (as defined by the bylaws) and shall serve as a committee of the whole on all matters of policy and procedures affecting the department. The department is to meet at least once each semester as determined by the chair. Written notice and agenda are to be sent to all members prior to the meeting. The chair presides over the meetings and may designate a secretary to record minutes. Business is to be conducted according to Robert’s Rules of Order. Items may be placed on the agenda by the chair, standing committees, or by request of any faculty governance member to the chair. There are five standing committees: graduate affairs, undergraduate affairs, graduate and undergraduate hearing committees, area heads committee, and the chair advisory committee. The committees are composed of elected and appointed faculty and serve in an advisory role to the chair. The function of each is to develop policies and procedures relevant to the committee’s concerns. Proposals from the standing committees are submitted to the regular members of the department for consideration and/or final recommendation. There are also ad-hoc committees appointed by the chair to deal with issues of a non-recurring nature. Members of this committee are selected in terms of relevance to the specific issue. Proposals from this group are submitted to standing committees or to the regular faculty. The department bylaws also address employment terms for TTF and FTNTTF in accordance with the university and faculty handbook policies. Relatedly, the bylaws outline and describe the faculty review process for TTF and FTNTTF, including the criteria and procedures for renewal, promotion, and tenure in accordance with university faculty handbooks and college guidelines. The bylaws for this department include attachments that expand upon the evaluation process. One attachment requires faculty to demonstrate how their research, teaching, service, 89 and outreach support and/or align with the mission of the department. Another attachment outlines the peer review process. A third attachment provides guiding principles for mentoring junior TTF. The fourth attachment describes the role and responsibilities of area heads in more detail. Department Two Chair Section 2.1 of the bylaws details the responsibilities, functions, selection, and review of the chair for Department Two. The chair serves as the chief administrative officer of the department and is responsible for education, research, service, outreach, and production programs. They are also responsible for budgetary, facilities, and personnel matters related to their unit. The faculty in the department along with the dean of the college determine the selection of the chair. Students may also be consulted in the chair selection process. The chair is reviewed at intervals not to exceed five years. There is no term limit or limit to the number of times an individual can serve as chair in Department Two, other than the limit imposed by the university rules. The chair participates in academic governance as part of their administrative responsibility. Barry, the chair of Department Two, shared that he believes bylaws can “help solve challenges.” And that "even though the decisions still reside with the chairperson” that the chair is not the only one with power. In this department, according to Barry, they are trying to find ways “we can structure our committees in a way in which we have discussions. Or at least advisement from across the faculty from early on to the endpoints.” Barry recognizes that to some degree as chair he is “bound within” these bylaws when dealing with faculty. 90 Chair Advisory Committee The advisory committee advises the chair on all matters and is comprised of five faculty from representative areas within the department. This committee is comprised of faculty from each appointment type with four faculty appointed by the chair and one elected faculty, serving for one year. Department Two Themes In this section I report the findings of the three themes that emerged from the data from Department Two: call for clarity and transparency, commitment to community, and change opportunities, costs and challenges. Within each theme, I focus on how participants in this department talk about the role of the chair and how it may influence FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures. Theme 1: Call for Clarity and Transparency. Barry and faculty in Department Two expressed the need for clarity and transparency for FTNTTF roles, expectations, processes, and opportunities. FTNTTF Roles and Respect. Barry expressed how in their department, TTF help with national recognition, while FTNTTF do the “most interesting work.” He explained that both faculty groups “allow us to do some pretty unique things.” This view from department-level leadership has helped to elevate the work of FTNTTF in this department. However, there remains a “lack of understanding” of the role of FTNTTF within the department and elsewhere in the university. For example, Participant 11 shared: So, there was apparently some confusion as to who I was. Somebody asked me or made a comment to me one time about how they were surprised that I came to all the faculty 91 meetings, and I’m like, why wouldn’t I? I am one of the faculty. So, I think early on there was a lot of misunderstanding of the role. They added that there is “a lot of variation in terms of how different people work with [FTNTTF]” because they do not understand their role, “but the chair really [is needed] because they're the ones who are interacting with other administrators, who have the ear of upper administration. They need a continual reminder of how we work, as being unique.” Participant 11 believes that what is needed is respect for “non-tenure-track-faculty to be seen as experts,” and that they be recognized for “our craft.” She is grateful that her current and previous chair have been open in their support of FTNNTF. She credits their leadership for continuing the efforts to recognize her and her FTNTTF colleagues as equals. One area this has been most evident is in the department bylaws that recognize all faculty equally. Still, there are gaps in how FTNTTF are viewed and misalignments in policies do not help to clarify their work nor the value of their contributions as faculty. The chair is committed to improving these aspects of Department Two, to the degree that he can. FTNTTF Policies and Procedures. Barry (the chair) shared that the current FTNTTF work and review systems do not match. For some FTNTTT members, their work is so “niche” that either there is no one else who can evaluate their work fairly, or the type of work that they do is so unique that the current review structure simply does not align. As chair, Barry acknowledged the need for further revisions to the bylaws section about the FTNTTF review process. Faculty participants share Barry’s concern about the FTNTTF review process, from outdated polices to a lack of understanding about the process. Participant 12 (FTNTTF) expressed in reference to the FTNTTF review process, “I would love information.” Participant 92 12 explained that “When you know the questions to ask, you get answers, but what if you don't know what you don’t know?” For her, she said, the current chair is “readily available” and always “happy to share information that he has.” And “if [he] doesn't know the answer he finds it.” For this FTNTTF, the chair is a key source for critical information that affects her job. His willingness to find answers to important questions about the revies process is a source of encouragement for the FTNTTF in this department. Similarly, Participant 13 (FTNTTF) expressed concern that, due to current review structures, some significant areas of his work are not captured during the review. He gave an example: Sometimes it’s hard to define that because the ‘publication’ that we create is performance...The publication is the credit that you worked on this show...now there's no lasting publication on it because you don’t record my [kind of work]. Having a chair that recognizes there is a problem and is willing to help find solutions left Participant 13 feeling optimistic. Some of his optimism could also be contributed to the department’s procedures more broadly. Participants (chair, TTF, FTNTTF) in Department Two described their work as faculty together as, “a very immersive kind of collaborative experience.” Participants shared that in their department, “There's always been a certain kind of infectious energy about it,” even in revising their department bylaws. Participant 11 (FTNTTF) said, “in our department, it is the same for everybody. Issues that come up in our governance meetings are equal to everybody and everybody attends regularly. Department committees are open to whoever wants to serve.” And in reference to the bylaws she added, “I'm also the bylaws nerd so I've helped write a lot of the 93 bylaws. Also [it] is a way for me to ensure representation is written in the bylaws for [FTNTTF]”. Related, Participant 11 reflected on a moment in the department five or six years ago when TTF advocated for FTNTTF to have a vote at the college level but “tenure stream faculty were basically making the argument that their role would be diminished by allowing FTNTTF to have a vote.” The vote still passed. This participant added that the new review process now in their department bylaws “de-prioritized tenure stream faculty for making the [appointment/promotion] decisions for everybody.” For her, the revised bylaws marked an additional benefit. She said, “We need to see change and that's the only way that people will believe that the change is possible is if we start to see some action on it.” The collaborative approaches and open structures (in their work and bylaws) give the chair and FTNTTF in Department Two a feeling of optimism, even if there are gaps in current policies. And knowing the nature and history of the department, the chair and FTNTTF, while concerned, are optimistic that any additional needed changes to the FTNTTF review processes can be made. FTNTTF Inequities. Barry believes making sure all faculty have professional development money “alleviates mysteries” and gives faculty “freedom to do what they want, that then they can decide on their own” what professional development opportunities they want to pursue. One approach he chooses to employ as chair to help address the workload inequity FTNTTF in his department experience is making professional development funding readily available. However, while Barry, as chair, has discretionary power to approve this funding as he sees best, he is also accountable to the college to exercise discernment and is expected to operate within the department’s allotted budget. 94 The FTNTTF in Department Two, not unlike other FTNTTF in other departments in this study, continue to take on extra work and report feeling overworked and underpaid. Participant 12, FTNTTF, shared how everyone is expected to take on extra work, that it is overwhelming, and that it is hard to know when and where the line is between extra work and professional development. People don't necessarily pay attention to the designations as much because we all work the same, and we all have similar expectations in our jobs, so that's one of the really major changes...Maybe not, there's an understanding of the difference, but nobody cares about the difference because we all seem to do very similar things in our job descriptions, even in sort of the percentage breakdown of the contract. She went on to explain, “I'm constantly developing new classes and you know how much time and energy that takes. I haven't pursued anything because I just don't have the time. So, I don't know if they [professional development opportunities] exist.” She added that she serves on lots of committees and has created extra and co-curricular activities for students noting that: None of this is in my contract, but I felt like I needed to do it because if I'm not then I'm not really doing anything and that doesn't look good…That's why we're overwhelmed. I mean we all are you know. I know we do this to ourselves, I think, as academics. For this participant, receiving extra professional development money upfront from the chair and having an open department structure that allows her to be completely, fully, and as equally involved as the TTF are viewed as positive. In many regards, the inclusive nature of the department allows her to do many things like committee work and design new courses. In this way, she is mirroring the work of her TTF colleagues. However, the reward for the extra work is often lacking in comparison. TTF in the department describe similar experiences, except they 95 may be rewarded with a sabbatical or eventually tenure. Participant 7, now TTF but who started out as FTNTTF, shared that the department is a bit of an “outlier” in the way that they approach service. He said: As a whole, you know it's for most of us we're on 40-40-20 contracts so service should be 20%.... We're really thrown into the deep end from the moment that you arrive. It's kind of a learned by doing thing…[we] are all a bit you know workaholics to begin with… and most of our committees are consciously a mixture of people of all employment types. So we're all in. We're all involved in that…When you first start there's a fear of saying no to anything because you have these planned evaluations...I was not going to say no to anything and then after a certain amount of time you start to develop a thick skin and you start to know, develop a capacity to juggle that much service….(Then he moved to TTF) I feel like it's not an option, you know when you get an email...when the chair contacts you directly and says hey I need you to do this. You say yes…[it’s] absolutely overwhelming…[and] I think it's important to have a reputation as someone that is generous with their committee work and someone who's capable of leadership in that area… [There is a] danger. If I say no, then someone else has to do it...I also want to choose service that is going to be fulfilling to me and that's that I can have an impact...You do the bad stuff so you can do the good stuff. Barry, who is painfully aware of the workload equities all faculty experience, is also mindful of the disparity in workload inequities between faculty ranks. While he is bound to work within existing structures, he shared that he is dedicated to “doing what he can” to protect his faculty and reward their good work. 96 In Department Two, participants described the role of the chair as potentially influencing how FTNTTF are viewed, included, and supported in their work. Barry acknowledges the work of FTNTTF and provides opportunities for TTF and FTNTTF, together, to do pretty “unique things.” They also described the role of the chair as potentially influencing efforts to codify outdated policies at the department level that impact FTNTTF. Furthermore, the role of chair is described as a critical one because they connect with administrators and others, potentially influencing the understanding of who FTNTTF are and the work they do. However, while the chair may have influence over the FTNTTF review processes, change efforts require the work of many. For some FTNTTF, they prefer to be fully involved in the process to ensure equal and fair representation is written into guiding documents like department bylaws. Furthermore, the role of the chair may have influence in addressing some FTNTTF inequities, but not all. For this department, the chair is generous with approving professional development funding opportunities, but they may not be able to directly influence workload inequities due to contract constraints beyond their control. For example, the FTNTTF participants reported feeling “overwhelmed” by the heavy workload and a review process that does not capture all their contributions. Theme 2: Commitment to Community. Barry shared that “our faculty really is dedicated to our bond, our community.” For him, he wants to do all he can to protect the good morale that exists in the department. He expressed concern that if he does not, their work could become “transactional.” Faculty participants (TTF and FTNTTF) in the department feel the same and attribute the creation of a “friendly” department to the current and previous chair, as well as the faculty. Some participants liken the department to a family or close friend group, even when there are differences and disagreements. 97 Participant 7, TTF, shared, “There are many different projects going on and everybody is contributing.” He added that “we all work very closely together,” and that being a member of this department is “a very immersive kind of collaborative experience.” For this participant, the chair is like the parent of the family, providing oversight and care. Participant 8, also TTF, shared that, “regardless of our internal squabbles,” they are unified. He added that their work is “collaborative because we have to bring our expertise together...even just the collaborative discussion.” And when it comes to students, he said, “I mean collaboration, even as it comes to curriculum and what it is we really want our students to be experiencing.” He added that “I am most concerned about our [FTNTTF]” who are most at risk, and that "philosophically” a mentor or guide should “take care of your most vulnerable members and even in society. That's truly an effective department.” Participant 12 shared, “It's really a special department. We are friends.” And Participant 11 explained, “We have more [FTNTTF] in the department than we do tenure-stream faculty” and “are all treated the same” because “all of our work is collaborative, and it requires the input of everyone.” In her view, they are “not just educators, but also practitioners, we have to work together.” She added that it takes everyone to get the work done, and that “it’s so natural for us because we do it every day” and “it does extend into our classroom practices.” However, for this participant, there is as lack of community across the FTTNTF rank more broadly, which for her this is “another craziness of how the hell do we [FTNTTF] find each other.” Participants from this department describe the culture within the department as “very energetic and supportive,” “very student centered,” full of “infectious energy,” “collaborative,” and “a great place to work.” Participants also shared that, “We’re fairly equal,” “It’s just a good group of people,” “It’s a really special department,” “We are friends,” “It’s fun,” and “It’s 98 exciting.” Department Two is known for its unique bond among the faculty and for having a culture of collaboration. Participants in this department spoke highly of the department’s current and past chairs. In Department Two, participants described the role of the chair as potentially influencing the working environment of the department by preserving the unity they have been able to cultivate and by “protecting” the “most vulnerable” of their faculty members (i.e., FTNTTF). This unity is preserved through collaborative projects, committee work, and departmental bylaws and practices that fully include FTNTTF. Participants in this department looked to the chair to help ensure that a “collaborative” nature exists even when there is the occasional “internal squabble[s].” The participants acknowledged their responsibility to each other and to the students. Theme 3: Change Opportunities, Costs, and Challenges. The college bylaws state the department chair has a “special obligation to build a strong department…strong in scholarship, teaching capacity, and service”. And Department Two bylaws state that the chair is responsible for education, research, service, budgets, and personnel matters, among other things related to their unit. In efforts to build a strong department that supports and includes FTNTTF, the chair and faculty participants in Department Two discussed the cost and challenges they face with enacting change, working with limited resources, and the dynamics within the department. Systemic Structures and Traditions. Barry expressed concern about “being in a shift moment” as a department. As chair, he wants to craft “a strategic plan for new growth” that also “aligns with college goals.” One challenge he is facing is having to create “hybrid” positions for faculty (TTF and FTNTTF) by “cutting and pasting from different job types to create a position” that allows him to hire the best people and meet the programmatic needs, all within the 99 budget. As a department, they are trying to make necessary changes that are also “more transparent [with] more involvement and say from all faculty,” especially with hiring and the FTNTTF review process. For Barry, he is facing several challenges including settings goals for departmental-growth, crafting new hiring models, revising the FTNTTF review process, and getting buy-in from others. Faculty in the department, like Participant 7, look to the chair for vision and leadership and acknowledge that the role comes with challenges. Participant 7 shared, “part of the chair’s challenge is to temper their own goals and to figure out how all the different puzzle pieces of a larger department fit together.” Changes to the existing organizational structures and bylaws requires Barry to interact with administrators, union leaders, and faculty. Barry shared that while he is responsible for leading his department in these efforts, “I’m bound within constraints” when dealing with faculty and implementing change. However, unlike Department One whose chair’s advisory council excludes the chair’s direct involvement and whose voting structure is selective (not all faculty can vote), Department Two has a more open and inclusive structure. In Department Two, the bylaw allow the chair to nominate four of the five advisory council members and the department has adopted a “department of the whole” model where everyone has membership and can vote. Barry and the faculty participants expressed confidence in, and find strength from, the inclusive and open structure of their department. The greater challenges appeared to be beyond the department and structures, challenges beyond Barry’s control. Resources. Barry was concerned that with the declining budget due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the halting of spending. Barry explained that because TTF still holding much of the power in the college and the university that it could get “messy, gummed-up, muddy” at the department level. For him, he hopes this does not cause the “special bond” they 100 have in the department to change, making the work they do together “transactional.” As chair, Barry desires to be transparent with the faculty in his department but he shared that how budgets work are not always clear to him. He feels the pressure to better understand budgetary matters in order to better serve his faculty and lead the department. The faculty participants in Department Two are sympathetic to the challenges their chair faces with managing the department’s budget but still desire greater transparency about how financial decisions are made and ultimately need funding support to do their work. For Participant 7, the relation between the chair and money “is not transparent.” For him, while he knows “the chair has made unilateral decisions” he wonders “what pressures exists” and stated that “I don’t know what kind of accountability they have.” And for Participant 12 (FTNTTF), who takes on additional outreach responsibilities in addition to her teaching, shared “I took, you know, 17 students to Chicago...none of this is in my contract, but I felt like I needed to do it because if I'm not then I'm not really doing anything and that doesn't look good.” She added, “That's why we're overwhelmed.” Faculty, like Participant 12, look to the chair to approve funding for co-curricular activities that strengthen and build programs and support student learning and to award additional professional development funding (or some type of reward) in recognition for their extra service. Interpersonal Dynamics. According to the mission posted on Department Two’s website, the department aims to “excite,” “provoke action,” and “challenge compliancy” to better understand, and in response to, current issues. Department Two’s aim and mission describe their goals as a unit and in some regards the mindset of the faculty. Barry and other participants in this department profess a strong bond between the faculty in Department Two. They described experiences where the chair pushed for FTNTTF to have opportunities that challenged the status 101 quo. And as a department, they crafted new bylaws that are inclusive of all faculty. Even when Barry noted that in the bylaws revision process some TTF were resistant to some of the changes that would afford FTNTTF equal status (in terms of department membership and voting rights), the propensity and mindset of the faculty to take action, challenge compliancy, and address current issues, superseded the challenges and differences. The interpersonal dynamics of this department resulted in a “department of the whole” structure while maintaining their strong bond and working as a cohesive unit. In Department Two, participants described the role of the chair as potentially influencing change regarding FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures. However, they also acknowledged that chairs are bound by bylaws and other constraints beyond their control, and that the constraints present challenges on every front. The challenges are especially apparent in regards to budgets, as noted by this department’s chair. While faculty look to the chair to address their funding needs and pay inequity, they recognized that how budgets work is not “transparent” and are sympathetic to the pressures and challenges their chair likely experiences in being financially generous to their faculty and accountable to administrators. Additionally, in the area of budgets the FTNTTF acknowledged that a change in their pay is beyond the influence of the chair alone. Furthermore, the faculty and the chair reported feeling “overworked” and sometimes challenged by interpersonal differences that may pop-up especially when leading change efforts and with limited resources. However, having an open and respectful attitude has allowed the chair and the faculty in Department Two to work together through the challenges that accompany change. 102 Department Two Summary When it comes to the role of chair and FTNTTF inequities, faculty in this department view their chair as “generous” with approving professional development for research. However, there appears to be a lack of clarity on professional development opportunities for teaching, and policies addressing workload are absent. Barry, in the role of chair, is able to promote needed attention and energies to the issues FTNTTF face. However, chairs remain limited in their decision-making reach, pointing to possible systemic challenges that might serve as barriers to their influence to change FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures. Faculty in Department Two credit their previous chair, described as “very strategic” for creating a collaborative and respectful working environment, and compliment their current chair for being accessible and willing to share information. They also recognize the push from TTF to forge new ground for FTNTTF. Together, these efforts influenced changes to policies and practices for FTNTTF in Department Two. As was the case in Department One, the role of the chair is seen as influential in certain areas. These areas include leading change efforts to department bylaws, finding creative solutions to addressing work equities for FTNTTF through approving professional development money when possible, and having a mindset that values all faculty as equal. In both departments, participants described the role of the chair as limited due to structures and processes beyond their control. These limitations exist even if the person filling the post is sympathetic to the challenges FTNTTF face, a strong proponent for addressing FTNTTF needs, and willing to be a part of the change process. Both Department One and Department Two chairs talked about challenges they face in working with limited budgets and leading the work of their departments while navigating between expectations of the post, of others, and themselves. 103 However, unlike Department One and unique to Department Two is a special bond among the faculty (TTF and FTNTTF). The work in Department Two is more collaborative in nature and the working environment is friendly and described as “infectious.” Additionally, the chair in Department Two appears to have more buy-in from the faculty (TTF and FTNTTF) in addressing the needs of FTNTTF policies, practices, and working conditions. Compared to Department One, the everyday working environment for FTNTTF in Department Two appears less combative and more collegial. Department Two policies and practices appear to be more inclusive and supportive of FTNTTF with bylaws that give FTNTTF voting rights nearly equal to that of TTF. Department Three This Humanities department is home to two undergraduate degree programs and three graduate degree programs. It is also home to a large introductory course that most undergraduates at this university are required to take. In a typical year, there are around 7,000 students enrolled in courses associated with this unit. There are 70 full-time faculty listed on the department’s website. However, unlike Departments One and Two, it is harder to distinguish from the information provided on the department’s website as to which full-time faculty are TTF and which are FTNTTF (Faculty B). FTNTTF A track is clearly noted in the faculty listing. Eight faculty members are on the A track. There is one adjunct faculty and eight affiliated faculty. The current chair, Janice, has extensive experience in higher education with over 20 years as TTF. She has been at this institution for several years first as TTF in the department, then as interim chair, and now as acting chair. 104 According to Department Three’s website, they value community. On their website it states that “in response to our commitment and inclusivity, department meetings are open to all members of the department community.” In addition, the website states, “We are also committed to providing space for all department community members to anonymously share questions, concerns, issues, ideas, and feedback.” Department Three Bylaws According to the department bylaws, last revised in December 2020, and the administration and committee organizational chart posted on their webpage, voting faculty of the department share the responsibility with the chair to adopt and publish bylaws. The department bylaws outline and describe the unit governance, faculty composition and voting procedures, organization, personnel, amendment, and grievance procedures. The bylaws include appendices that address the work assignment policy, annual review reporting, and merit pay review processes for the unit. The department bylaws recognize the binding governance over its faculty along with other university and college bylaws, handbooks, documents, and procedures. The department’s voting members include all TTF and all FTNTTF with at least a one- year appointment. There are some voting restrictions, however, for FTNTTF. Per the bylaws, the department meets at least once a semester. There are several committees in Department Three (merit review, reappointment, promotion, and tenure, appointments and equal opportunity, curricular, awards, bylaws and elections, and hearing board) composed of elected and appointed faculty (and in some cases students). The committees serve in an advisory role to the chair. These committees meet on a regular basis. Standing committees can recommend changes to department policies and procedures, and curricular and instructional matters. 105 Faculty in this department may be appointed or elected to serve on college-level committees depending on their role in the department and the college committee. For example, the director of undergraduate studies is the department representative to the college curriculum committee, and the graduate director is the representative to the college graduate committee. For faculty annual reviews, the bylaws describe in detail the review timeline, criteria, and required materials to be submitted for TTF and FTNTTF. Both faculty ranks may have a review mentor to help them prepare their dossiers and a career mentor to facilitate professional growth. Amendments may be made to the department bylaws as described in the bylaws document. Faculty and student grievance procedures are also detailed in the department bylaws document. The chair is a member of all department committees in varying capacities depending on the committee structure (e.g., voting, ex-officio). All meetings are open except portions of meetings with the department advisory council and chair when considering personnel decisions. Department Three Chair Section 3.1 of the bylaws details the responsibilities, functions, selection, and review of the chair in Department Three. The chair is responsible for educational, research, and service programs; budgetary matters; physical facilities; and personnel matters. The chair has a special obligation to build a department strong in scholarship, teaching capacity, creative endeavors, and public service. The chair shall normally serve no more than two consecutive terms. Departmental members, along with the dean, review the department chair. The chair is reviewed in intervals not to exceed five years. Other Department Leadership. In addition to the chair, there are two associate chairs and a director, each appointed by the chair. These posts serve at the pleasure of the chair and 106 report to the chair directly. Currently, a FTNTTF serves as associate chair and director of undergraduate studies. A TTF serves as associate chair and director of graduate studies, and a TTF serves as the director of a large program required for all freshmen. Chair Advisory Committee Department Three has an advisory council composed of five TTF who can serve for two consecutive terms, two FTNTTF (one type A and one type B) who can serve for one term, and two graduate students with voice but not vote. This body meets at least once a month during the academic year and as needed. Most meetings are open to all faculty as observers, and if deemed necessary, the committee can hold open meetings without the department chair. The minutes of all meetings are distributed to all faculty in the department. Department Three Themes In this section I report the findings of the three themes that emerged from the data collection in Department Three: call for clarity and transparency, commitment to community, and change opportunities, costs and challenges. Within each theme, I focus on how participants in this department talk about the role of the chair and how it may influence FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures. Theme 1: Call for Clarity and Transparency. Clarity and transparency were top of the list in participant comments. Janice and faculty in this department expressed the need for clarity and transparency for FTNTTF roles, expectations, processes, and opportunities. FTNTTF Roles and Respect. The department’s webpage declares a commitment to inclusivity and being a place where all are welcomed. Most of the faculty in Department Three are FTNTTF. Janice, the chair, shared in reference to understanding who FTNTTF are and what they do, “I relate because I have taught the same courses. We share in the enterprise [discipline]. 107 I see everyone as a colleague.” FTNTTF participants credit Janice’s commitment to inclusivity and her mindset about their value to influencing how some FTNTTF in the department feel respected, even though it is not always clear who this group of faculty is. Participant 16 shared, “I often refer to myself just as a faculty member, because if I say [FTNTTF] nobody knows what that means. The nomenclature is a little bit tricky.” He added that the promotional ranks within the FTNTTF tracks often mean “more work, more responsibility, [and] the responsibility is often less well defined.” He went on to describe his experience as an FTNTTF in Department Three: We were kind of building the plane, as it flew. We didn't have, for instance, language in our bylaws to even include [us]. So, we had to do our best work, document the best work, communicate the best work, but we also had to work on our bylaws and our local infrastructure. He added, “This is a new and emerging labor category.” But he is thankful that the chair invited him and other FTNTTF to be a part of the conversation and efforts to address the gaps and lack of understanding about who they are and the work they perform. Similarly, Participant 15, while feeling respected by his chair, still has concern about larger, systemic issues around FTNTTF that are beyond the chair’s control. He shared, “you look around [higher education in general] and you still see barriers and structures that are put in place that are way more exclusive than they are inclusive.” He asked, “What are we investing in? What generates revenue for universities? Tuition.” He feels that “only some students are interested in research" and most students simply just want to take classes. To this participant the gap between what appears to be most revered by universities (research) and what pays the bills (tuition) points toward a “fractured system” in higher 108 education. In his view, “It is not sustainable because if they start siphoning off more funds for teaching from revenue generated from tuition to prop up the research side of the university, the site is going to cry foul. Big time.” Participants 15 and 16, FTNTTF, feel supported and respected by their chair and believe there is commitment at the department-level to more inclusive practices. However, policies and practices beyond the department remain outdated and problematic. FTNTTF Policies and Procedures. Janice, the chair in this department, acknowledged that at the start of her term their bylaws “need[ed] actual work.” In her first year as chair, Janice organized faculty workshops focused on teambuilding and communication strategies. Then, they started revising their department policies and practices. For Janice, bylaws can also serve as a “protection” for faculty. And in her commitment to supporting all faculty, she shared she was determined to bring change to their current practices with particular focus on the working conditions for FTNTTF. One FTNTTF participant described the result of their department organizational restructuring as: Being tremendously more transparent...I think that’s important and that org chart when we initially created that and had it on display in the main office. And then we put it on display in the faculty lounge to tell people, like look, this is how it works, right. This is how this particular person is over here in this position and then this position, these are the committee’s...So if you have questions about what this committee is doing, here [are] the people you can contact. And so, we did that specifically to help people understand organizational structure within the department. This participant credits his chair’s commitment to updating department policies and for being willing to lead in the efforts to create more inclusive and transparent practices for FTNTTF. 109 FTNTTF Inequities. Although some progress has been made on updating department- level policies and practices for FTNTTF, Janice and faculty participants shared their concerns about FTNTTF inequities related to workload and pay. Janice, in reference to FTNTTF contracts and percentages of teaching-research-service (TRS) expectations stated that “service does not equal pay,” and she recognized that “being a good citizen does not pay the bills." She openly shared that she is aware of the tension between what a chair can do at the department-level and what is required or bound by contracts at the university-level. For Janice, she believes, as chair, it is her "prerogative to incentivize.” Thus, she approves funding or other monies for professional development to reward or at least recognize the extra work FTNTTF perform that is seen as service or is outside of their contracts. Participant 14, FTNTTF (type B) shared, “Managing various projects in various capacities, you know, it’s like spinning plates.” She added, “I do a lot of service for which I do not get paid.” This participant believes “[the] question is how to do it all and take on more (maybe for pay) to reach tenure pay to be able to pay bills more comfortably.” She worries about her colleagues who have 3/3 teaching loads plus service. If this were her, she said, “I would be numb.” She labels this type of workload with low pay as “inhumane.” Furthermore, she shared that she pushes beyond her contract because “it needs to be done.” She said the chair told faculty “we gotta get butts in seats” in order to “preserve our major.” In response to the directive Participant 14 shared that “we have to do something to get enrollment...and we can’t get the tenure system faculty to show up for anything. And it is deeply, deeply infuriating.” Additionally, Participant 15, FTNNTF (type A), believes the “importance of sustainability is crucial,” and to “crash and burn in this position doesn't help anyone.” He added that it is “hilarious because [my contract is] 10% service and I’m on 10 committees this year.” 110 He explained, “I’m operating at about 180% capacity, which is just nonsense...so I mentally and emotionally deal with the fact that that's...probably part of my job.” And in his experience “there's lots of opportunities” for professional development but they are not as readily available to FTNTTF. He added that unlike TTF, there is “no negotiation for professional development funds for [FTNTT] faculty” because it does not fall under contract percentages. He continued by saying, “The key question is do people have the time and energy for the funding to really do them.” Furthermore, Participant 16 shared that he must find professional development opportunities on his own, and then he would need the chair’s approval and/or support to participate. He added that if he wanted to conduct research, he would have to pair with a TTF in order to be able to apply for an Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval because the current university policies limit his role as a researcher. Thanks to his chair’s commitment to finding creative solutions to FTNTTF inequities, he is working on an IRB approved research project with his chair serving as the primary investigator. Theses FTNTTF experiences underscore Janice’s concerns and challenges she faces as chair – asking FTNTTF to take on more work, to be good citizens, but without compensation. In Department Three, participants described the role of the chair as influencing how FTNTTF are recognized as “colleagues,” helping to find ways to clarify who FTTTF are (e.g., clarity in nomenclature), and conveying to others the value of their work. Participants in this department also described the role of the chair as potentially influencing efforts to revise outdated policies at the department level that impact FTNTTF. In some instances, participants in this department view the role of the chair as an advocate for FTNTTF and believe the chair’s influence can help in the “fight” to bring about change for FTNTTF given the nature of the post. 111 However, the chair does not act alone in efforts to address FTNTTF needs and must work within the “bounds” of existing systems and structures intended to “protect” faculty. Yet, at times systems and structures may constrain the influence of the chair. Participants in this department also described the role of the chair as potentially influencing workload inequities by not asking FTNTTF to take on extra work without compensation. Instead, the chair may be able to reward FTNTTF through creative measures within their control such as professional development funding and the negotiation of changes in contract terms. Participants in Department Three also described the role of the chair as potentially influencing FTNTTF confidence in themselves to allowing them to take on new roles and work. According to Department Three participants, the role of the chair is to encourage FTNTTF to continue to grow professionally by approving professional development opportunities and supporting collaborative research endeavors. Theme 2: Commitment to Community. According to Department Three’s website, they value community and are committed to providing a welcoming environment for all. The chair and faculty participants in this department shared their commitment to community, as well as the challenges they experienced in efforts to create an open and respectful community. Janice, who “see[s] everyone as a colleague” because “we can talk teaching,” shared that in her first year as chair she chose to focus on community-building efforts because of the “complex” nature of the department. This complexity is due to the variety of undergraduate and graduate programs, the large undergraduate student population that enrolls in one of their courses to fulfill a core requirement for the university, and due to the range of faculty types in the department. Janice believes that community-building could help build a stronger department. In her view, strengthening relationships within the department and creating a more open and inclusive set of practices could help faculty “to tie research to teaching, making it more robust” and 112 ultimately, creating “a better community.” She described how recently the department organized a COVID relief fund that was started by faculty to help collect money for faculty to be able to purchase items needed to work remotely. For her, “It really spoke to community,” and created a “sense of we are in it together” to benefit both faculty and students. Two FTNTTF in the department expressed how they found community through “solidarity” and “camaraderie” while working in a complex department. Participant 15 shared that the FTNTTF made the department’s programs the priority because “we are passionate and care.” He believes that because the FTNTTF in his department “made the time,” they were able to create a support system and a community that unites FTNTTF. And they created a community without the involvement of TTF. He also credits the “confidence” the chair had in him to lead community-building efforts. Similarly, Participant 16 discussed the solidarity formed among the FTNTTF members in the department. He shared that a group of them were appointed around the same time, and from that point on they have “claim[ed] some sort of solidarity.” He also shared that he believes “they [FTNTTF] need a place to work and to be attached to a collective work, but if you don’t take care of the people who make-up the program, then there’s no program.” He heralds the community found in his fellow FTNTTF in the department when he said, “My colleagues are just wonderful. They're great. Our culture within our department has been one.” He further commented, My colleagues…they're receptive. They're supportive.” And as for the chair, he said, “she’s been terrific,” and “she assumes that everyone is capable, and everyone has gifts to offer.” Department Three is committed to community-building efforts to reflect more inclusive policies, practices, and working conditions for FTNTTF. Participant 14, also a FTNTTF, credits 113 the chair who “worked really, really hard on our behalf to kind of change the culture” and for the progress the department has made in being a more welcoming, open, and stronger department. In Department Three, participants described the role of the chair as influencing how FTNTTF are viewed as part of the community by finding ways to tie their teaching to research, thus making the department more robust. Participants in this department looked to the chair to “fight” for FTNTT but when expected results are beyond the influence of the chair, FTNTTF employed agency measures to build community with one another. Like Department One, participants in this department look to the chair to endorse efforts that could build community beyond work-related endeavors. Efforts such as the COVID relief fund created a sense of togetherness for faculty. And similar to Departments One and Two, participants in Department Three experienced challenges in the process. Theme 3: Change Opportunities, Costs, and Challenges. Janice and the faculty in this department talked about the costs and challenges that often come along with change efforts. Janice commented that their bylaws need work because they do not align with FTNTTF work. She sees outdated bylaws as potential constraints, but believes their department is making progress to change that. Further, she views the revised bylaws as a way to protect the department (including FTNTTF). She added that “policy should not trap us,” but “it costs to speak up.” For Janice, to “speak up” in support of more inclusive policies and practices for FTNTTF could have a leadership and a relational cost. Some TTF colleagues in the department hold a strong opposing view, preferring the status quo and would prefer no changes to the bylaws. These TTF, at times, have withhold their support of Janice and have refused to be a part of effort towards creating a more inclusive and collaborative department. It can also cost FTNTTF to “speak up” in settings where those in power (TTF) do not accept them as colleagues, do not understand their work, or 114 do not desire to update policies and practices to better align with FTNTTF work. As chair, Janice recognizes the challenges that she and others could face when speaking up in favor of changes that include and empower all faculty. Yet, she is willing to take the risks. Systemic Structures and Traditions. The bylaws for Department Three describe the maintenance and amending of department-level policies and practices as a shared responsibility between the voting faculty and the chair. The department also formally recognizes in their bylaws the binding governance of other university and college policies along with their own at the department-level. For Janice, there is a gap between what is established by or at the university level and what is within her role as chair. In her experience, “very few decisions are made by the chair” and are “mostly made collaboratively.” As a result, Janice is faced with the challenge of having to work between structures and systems that may not mesh or that may conflict with the other. The existing structures require Janice, who supports shared governance, to involve others in the decision-making processes. The faculty participants in Department Three, who also embrace a shared-governance approach, expressed their challenges with working between structures when others hold to the traditional practices of the two-tied system. Participant 14 (FTNTTF) often finds herself asking, “Who is responsible for what?” and believes that higher education needs to figure out the tenure system because it is “a dinosaur” and “is going away.” And she acknowledged that just making this statement “would put [TTF] on the defensive.” Furthermore, the experiences of FTNTTF in the department point to an outdated IRB approval system that does not allow FTNTTF to be primary investigators on research studies. The chair, in response to this barrier and in support of FTNTTF, agreed to be the primary investigator on the research project. While this issue (research endeavors limited for FTNTTF) 115 resides at the university level, Janice found a creative solution to the challenges and gaps in existing structures. Resources. Outdated and misaligned policies and structures are not Janice’s only challenges as chair when it comes to changes regarding FTNTTF. She is working with limited resources. In Janice’s view what is needed is money. And like her fellow chairs in this study, everyone is always asking the chair for money. Janice also feels the pressure to find funding streams to support the FTNTTF in her department who have real concerns about their working conditions. Participant 14 (FTNTTF) says the “question is how to do it all and take on more (maybe for pay) to reach tenure pay to be able to pay bills more comfortably.” Participant 15 (also FTNTTF) who claims he is working at “180% capacity” is worried about sustaining this pace. The three FTNTTF participants in Department Three believe the “title” of chair could be used to “pressure” or influence others to act. Related, Participant 14, one of the three FTNTTF participants who serves on the Special Task Force (STF), shared that in addition to the time and energy required to make change happen, there is another real challenge for the STF, money. She shared that the STF has been discussing FTNTTF pay inequity and that to make the change needed would require adding four million dollars to an already tight budget. This is another example of the challenges chairs face when addressing change to FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures; it requires the involvement of others. The influence of the chair is limited by structures beyond their control, and especially when it comes to limited financial resources. Interpersonal Dynamics. The department website notes a commitment to open and respectful dialogue to build a stronger community and to work across differences about concerns, 116 issues, and ideas. Janice credits part of the ground made on revisions to the review process in their bylaws to her attitude about change as chair. She believes that change is needed and is committed to the process. The three FTNTTF faculty in Department Three credit Janice for her “relentless” leadership in taking on tough personalities and differing views to see change to the FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures at the department level. For Participant 14, she has a similar “mindset” for change to her chair. Like Janice, Participant believes change is needed, and she is committed to the process. For this participant, finding her own agency to bring about change is imperative because she believes so much of everything comes down to agency and politics. She is “not willing to be treated differently” as a FTNTTF member, nor does she accept the view that her decision to pursue this career path is “a narrative of failure.” While her chair is “relentless” in her efforts to see changes to FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures, this participant is willing to invest her energies and time, and to “die on that hill” to make change happen. Somewhat like Sally in Department One, Janice (as chair) is faced with the challenge of working with faculty who may or may not share her views about FTNTTF and change. And in some ways like Barry in Department Two, Janice has been able to find enough liked-minded faculty to enact changes to some FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures at the department-level. In Department Three, participants described the role of the chair as potentially influencing change regarding FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures. Participants recognized that the chair has a mindset for change and is committed to the process. Faculty in this department often look to the chair to take risks on their behalf, yet recognize the limitations to the post. 117 Department Three Summary Department Three took a unique approach in their bylaw revision approach by first focusing on community-building. Then, they revised their departmental document to start with a statement declaring that the work and responsibility of the department is shared. Department Three bylaws also formally recognizes that the department’s governance is connected to other governing bodies. The chair and faculty in the department also created a colorful organizational chart, diagraming the administrative and committee structures that included the names of departmental leaders and committee chair and members. They did so for added clarity and transparency. According to the participants in the department, the new organizational chart helps with understanding their own work and that of others. Faculty participants in this department believe the chair has the power to influence workload, pay, and professional development inequities. This group of participants believe the title of chair carries influence. The personality and mindset of the chair can influence change regarding FTNTTF working conditions. Faculty in this department referred to their chair as “relentless” because “she cares that much about our department.” This chair created incentives for FTNTTF such as providing compensation as motivation and reward where contracts are more restrictive and review processes misaligned. This chair enacted changes to create flexible structures that were incentivizing for FTNTTF and connected service work to their teaching, which then tied directly into the review process. One participant in this department credited the chair’s influence for updating their department systems to be more efficient and for forging new ground for FTNTTF. The FTNTTF in this department boast about their chair. Specifically, they recognize her for creating and supporting new leadership posts for 118 FTNTTF, altering a fractured system, elevating their profile, and giving them confidence to explore new professional opportunities. Like in Departments One and Two, the role of the chair in Department Three has limited influence on FTNTT policies, practices, and work cultures. Even when the chair is considered “relentless” in pursuit of needed change and see themselves as “a colleague” and “friend” of those they lead and work with on a regular basis, commitment to the change process is sometimes not enough. Also, similar to Departments One and Two, the faculty in Department Three look to the chair to help bring clarity to the FTNTTF role and work, while operating within the bounds of the post. And while participants in each department acknowledged their chairs have limited resources, the chairs choose to find creative solutions to some of the issues FTNTTF face and in some instances are able to build community. The chairs in this study have been able to oversee and influence efforts to revise department bylaws. The process for Department Two appears to have been the smoothest. Department One’s process was the most tension filled. This may be credited to the friendly and collaborative work environment in Department Two. Department Three is the most transparent in conveying to others the roles and work of faculty (TTF and FTNTTF) in the department by designing a detailed organizational chart, prominently displaying it, and circulating it more widely. However, all participants (chairs and faculty) shared that the work is not done, at every level. College Task Force(s) According to the college website, its core values center on equity, openness, and community. And according to one participant who is part of the college’s leadership team, the college recently launched an initiative to create a workplace in which people feel well, feel 119 supported, and can flourish. This includes endeavors around faculty and leadership development and tasks forces charged with creating a more caring culture, especially for FTNTTF. The college leadership program, created in 2019-2020, is designed to provide aspiring and current leaders within units the opportunity to consider new pathways to intellectual leadership in the college. This program is open to TTF, and those interested in participating need to be nominated by their department chair. Program topics include among others: assessment of leadership competencies, mentoring others, collegiality, academic freedom, creating a culture of care, strategic decision-making, work-life balance, and navigating university policies and practices. A college-wide task force was created in 2019, in response, and in part to the university’s efforts already underway to address broader challenges. The task force is charged with “flattening” some of the imbalances of power and unfair practices to make a more equitable and inclusive workplace for all. The main charge for the task force is to align college values with policies and practices at the college and department levels. The college advisory group recognized the gaps in bylaws and practices, saw this to be a problem, and acknowledged that revisions and actions were needed right away. At first, the college leadership worked with chairs and directors to discuss core values, review current policies and practices, and then to examine how their values align (or do not align) with the current state of things. This first working group put the discussed values into a word cloud, and the words that came up were equity, openness, community, and inclusion. They then asked themselves, what does it mean to be a faculty member? The group discussed other topics such as faculty development and succession planning. One item that they discovered was 120 that the policies in place, designed for TTF, did not apply in the same way to FTNTTF. In fact, in some areas, policies did not exist at all, leaving a “big hole” in how FTNTTF work is supported and in how FTNTTF members are included. At this point, the task force included some TTF, but several members asked that it be open to FTNTTF. Participant 1, a member of the task force and who has oversight of personnel for the college expressed, “We’re at a point where we have to figure [it] out.” So, with the dean’s approval, she sent a call for nominations to chairs and directors to recruit faculty (TTF and FTNTTF) to serve on a special task force charged with addressing FTNTTF issues, “to restore faculty governance,” and to examine documents, practices, and other structures related to FTNTTF. The task force was charged with examining bylaws, handbooks, renewal and promotion processes, FTNTTF professional development and career path opportunities, as well as FTNTTF workload and pay. The Special Task Force Participant 1 (who also has experience serving as a department chair) added that in terms of FTNTTF, the college, departments, and faculty need to make “all of the non-tenure-stream promotion pathways transparent.” One mechanism, according to Participant 1, is opportunities for mentorship. Echoing the webpage, she added that they (college, departments, faculty) need “to create a workplace in which people feel well, feel supported, and where they can really flourish.” She referred to this as “intellectual wellness.” For her, creating environments like these would make a “more equitable and inclusive workplace.” She also believes that if faculty don’t have the basic conditions of care in which they can flourish, they will not become the intellectual leaders that a university wants. 121 The special task force (STF) is composed of co-chairs that are FTNTTF (one A and one B track), two department chairs (for administrator perspective), other “equal representation” from across the college, and one ex-officio member from the dean’s office. The STF started during academic year 2019-2020 and is in its second year. The STF is charged with bringing clarity and transparency to policy and practices for FTNTTF and is exploring ways to address inequities that abound in the workplace for FTNTTF. The STF spent the first semester looking at guidelines, surveyed FTNTTF, and began revising promotion documents at the college-level. For instance, the guidelines for promotion for FTNTTF were not appropriate because they were written based on the TTF model of teaching, research, and service. Unlike TTF, FTNTTF primarily focus on teaching. On STF member, who is also a participant in this study, believes that without policies and practices that appropriately and accurately align with FTNTTF work, FTNTTF “are stuck.” The STF will present their recommendations in Spring 2021, and the recommendations include new language to “streamline” the review and promotion process to “make it clear” and less “murky.” Other recommendations include changes in titles, salary increases, longer contracts, negotiations for contract percentages, opportunities for FTNTTF to serve in administrative roles, improved advocacy, and alternative incentives for extra service. Three of the FTNTTF participants in this study serve on the STF (each from a different department). Each of these three participants discussed the importance of the STF and how the work of the task force is both personally beneficial as well as vital for bringing clarity and transparency to FTNTTF workplace policies, practices, and cultures. They also shared that working as a collective across units and ranks, and alongside chairs and college leadership, helped them to better understand the challenges and build trust. 122 Participant 10 in sharing about the work of this group said, “I hope [it] will trickle down to make some kind of impact.” For her, serving on this task force has helped her to become aware of budgets. She explained, “I’ve never been allowed to work with budgets or been aware of them.” She added: It’s been really great to sit with some department chairs and have this conversation. And I’ve learned so much about budgets and how the politics of academia and working with upper administration and that go, you know, above the dean, you know, I had never had these conversations. Participant 11 describes their task as a group as having “[an] eye on equality and trying to sort of de-stigmatize the role of [FTNTTF].” She believes they are “creating recommendations for sort of this improvement of the status and perceived status of [FTNTTF].” When the STF surveyed the FTNTTF, they reported feeling unwelcome, uninformed, and marginalized. She added that one way the STF is taking immediate action is by sending their list of recommendations to the college listserv instead of through chairs so that everyone is informed. She added that the aim of the STF is to “equalize and recognize that everybody has an important voice.” Despite the general positivity about the STF, Participant 14 does have concerns. For the STF recommendations to become policy, they will have to be reviewed and voted on by a college advisory group made up of primarily TTF. This group will also talk with the dean before the college-wide vote that will decide if the recommendations become policy or not. Participant 14, also one of the co-chairs of the STF, is concerned that although many TTF “are allies” of FTNNTF, that “after a series of convoluted discussions primarily among tenure-system faculty who are concerned that this will somehow impact them in a negative way,” that the 123 process will be impeded and negatively impacted. She is concerned that her TTF colleagues “just really don't get it.” Participant 1 would like to see the STF continue for at least one more year as the college moves forward with implementing some of the recommendations made by this group. She added, “I hope that maybe the STF would become advisory,” and that “I would really like to see the university take up this work.” The STF, in its own way, has become a vital community, advocating for change for FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures. In addition to the STF, there is a college-appointed faculty advocate who is a resource for TTF and FTNTTF and may serve as a change agent for faculty. This faculty person serves as an advocate for diversity, equity, and inclusion in the college, works with chairs and search committees in the faculty search process to recruit top candidates, and focuses on the retention and advancement of faculty. Faculty can meet one-on-one to share personal perspectives, experiences, and concerns. While this resource is available for all regular faculty in the college, the FTNTTF participants in this study did not seem very aware of it. For the few FTNTTF that were aware, they shared that one advocate is not enough for the whole college. Participants expressed that often TTF requests are given preference over FTNTTF because of the advocate’s workload. College developments, like the task forces described, impact the roles of department chairs and their influence on FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures. College efforts to address FTNTTF needs through collaborative efforts may add to chairs’ work, requiring them to lead change efforts that they and their department may or may not be ready to take on, but now must. At the same time, college developments may increase the influence of the chair through collective efforts and collaborative endeavors. As demonstrated in the task forces in this study, 124 college-led initiatives may provide the opportunity and support for chairs to address FTNTTF needs regardless of departmental-level environments. Furthermore, collective and collaborative college-level developments may also provide chairs the opportunities to bring otherwise marginalized voices and perspectives to the discussion by being able to nominate FTNTTF from their department to participate. Research Questions In this section I explicitly answer the research questions that guided this study. The main research question was pursued by answering in detail the four sub-questions that follow. The main research question was, what role does the department chair play (e.g., establishing, managing, changing) regarding FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures? The first sub- question was, what role does the department chair play in the processes or approaches employed at the department level in developing a collegial culture regarding FTNTTF? This study found that chairs have a critical role in fostering a collegial culture regarding FTNTTF. In some instances, institutional, college, and departmental-level bylaws may charge or hold the chair responsible for establishing and maintaining an inclusive and caring community. Chairs may model mutually respectful workplace practices such as in how they address and reference FTNTTF in formal and informal contexts. Chairs may seek to employ approaches that unify faculty such as bylaws revisions, sharing common interests, collaborative work projects, social gatherings, office spaces, as well as clear and transparent communication practices. These approaches could result in boosted morale and energized faculty. In Department One, when it comes to FTNTTF, the chair demonstrated a respectful workplace practice by viewing all faculty as equals, being available to advise FTNTTF, looking for ways to recognize and reward FTNTTF work, and supporting professional growth 125 opportunities for FTNTTF. The faculty in this department see the role of chair as leader, guide, faculty support, and advocate. They view the role of chair as a key connector for faculty. For this group of participants, they believe the chair should be a good listener and someone who leads with an energy that propels change and influences others to enact change. In Department Two, regarding FTNTTF, the chair also demonstrated a respectful workplace practice by holding the view that everyone matters and by viewing all faculty as colleagues and experts. Barry focuses on balancing how TTF and FTNTTF work might compliment the other, elevating faculty work and the reputation of the department. Additionally, the chair seeks to protect the good morale and strong bond that exists in the department. Faculty in this department look to the chair to make the department more visible. This group of participants believe a chair should be available, knowledgeable, and is a key interlocutor for faculty (TTF and FTNTTF) and especially for those who are marginalized by existing structures and practices that result in power imbalances. In Department Three, the chair demonstrated a respectful and inclusive workplace practice through her mindset that everyone is a colleague and that change starts with the chair. Additionally, her commitment to the change process, practice of setting boundaries, and focus on community-building efforts in the department are examples of how a chair’s role may influence the development of a collegial culture for FTNTTF. The faculty in this department believe the chair is essential to FTNTTF, is someone who can exercise candor (because of their title and being a TTF), and is willing to take risks. In many ways, the chairs in this study demonstrated a similar mindset and commitment about FTNTTF and influence change to improve working the conditions for this group of faculty. However, chairs, as this study found, are not solely responsible for fostering an inclusive 126 and respectful culture. While chairs may model, encourage, and guide efforts towards a more inclusive and collegial culture, community-building efforts at all levels may need to be explored to address and work through long-standing differences. Where the culture is less supportive of FTNTTF because of more exclusionary practices of TTF, chairs may seek buy-in from a few key stakeholders to help to influence change in how FTNTTF are viewed and valorized. Chairs and others may consider employing efforts to create tasks forces to help develop a collegial culture towards FTNTTF. The second sub-question was, what role does the department chair play in the processes or approaches employed at the department level in enacting shared-governance practices and policies (e.g., departmental, college, institutional levels) regarding FTNTTF? This study found that while chairs may serve as chief administrative officer at the departmental level and preside over department meetings, their role is both discretionary and advisory to faculty. Furthermore, this study found that chairs may influence (to varying degrees) shared-governance practices more broadly (at the college and institutional level) and more locally (at the department level) because of their position and title as chair. As TTF, chairs have more sway and say than FTNTTF depending on their personal views and willingness to take risks. In Department One, the chair openly shared about the many demands on her as chair (e.g., time, budgets, policies out of their control, faculty personalities, her own capacities) and the challenges of working with shifting faculty, values, foci, goals of the institution, college, department, and not being able to negotiate the teaching portion (determined by the union) of faculty contracts. The faculty in Department One look to their chair to have institutional 127 knowledge, and in the areas where they have decision-making power, believe the chair should “decide in ways that are positive for the department.” In Department Two, the chair shared that he is working through how best to lead his department in ways that embrace and balance a historical way of doing things and new approaches. For him, one of his biggest challenges is securing money for the department. As chair, he is also challenged with decision making. Some decisions reside with the chairperson while others are out of the chair’s control. For him, he believes bylaws and unions can help solve some of the challenges FTNTTF face. Yet, at the same time, bylaws and unions may restrict his influence and decision-making power. The faculty in Department Two believe the chair is responsible for championing the department’s vision and for finding effective ways to implement it. These faculty view the chair as an authority over them that can approve things like service work and authorize funding decisions at the department level. For this group of faculty participants, the chair is not just a figure head but someone who listens, looks to the future, makes global decisions, and is willing to resolve issues. And still, the faculty in Department Two acknowledge that chairs are challenged by having to manage ever increasing conflicting visions. In Department Three, the chair believes that departments run according to shifting values and finds herself consistently working between the gaps of what is established by the university and her role as chair. She also believes that bylaws are a protection for faculty and that unions can help provide job security, especially for FTNTTF. All three chairs in this study, while committed to shared-governance approaches, are challenged by working between and within existing structures where they may have little to no control. The chairs in this study employed their decision-making power and authority as 128 department heads to appoint FTNTTF to committees and other department endeavors where the bylaws allowed. The chairs in this study elected to advocate for changes to FTNTTF policies and practices through their involvement in college and institutional initiatives and locally through their commitment to fair, open, and inclusive policies and practices. And in some instances, the chairs in this study approached enacting shared-governance practices and policies through their own voice and voting privileges as TTF. Relatedly, the chairs in this study elected to employ advisory approaches to enact shared- governance practices and policies for FTNTTF, either to build a stronger department and community, or to work within the bounds of the post by encouraging and seeking buy-in from others. Most often, the Chairs in this study consulted with key decision-making bodies in the department to consider meeting agenda topics, division of service work within the department, and to organize revision efforts to create bylaws that would be more inclusive and supportive of FTNTF. Some chairs in this study advised or encouraged key faculty to serve on decision-making bodies, such as faculty unions and committees, that influence FTNTTF work. This also applied to college and university-level bodies where the chair employed their positional and/or relational influence by nominating certain faculty to serve. Depending on the departmental bylaws structure, some chairs were able to directly influence more inclusive practices. One example was the approval of meeting agendas that include revisions to department bylaws that could enact change through a committee structure to better align current policies and practices with FTNTTF work. There were occasions where the chair elected to appoint FTNTTF to certain committees and/or posts, and they had the authority to do so. This was mainly at the department level, although some of the chairs nominated 129 FTNTTF for college and university level service work. In other instances, chairs could only indirectly, or from the sidelines, encourage inclusive approaches to ensure there is representation of all faculty perspectives and voices. The third sub-question explored in this study was, what role does the department chair play in the processes and approaches employed at the department level regarding the development and implementation of assessment of policies and practices (e.g., departmental, college, institutional levels) related to FTNTTF? This study found that the chair can be influential in developing and implementing assessment of FTNTTF related policies and practices. Their influence resides at the department level through the organizational structure of the bylaws, initiatives they promote, and discussions they encourage. At the same time, however, depending on the organizational structure, chairs may be limited in developing policies at the department level related to FTNTTF. For example, the chairs advisory council (CAC) for each department is charged with advising the chair on all department matters, yet varies in membership size (Department One – 6 members; Department Two – 51 members; Department Three – 7 members) the councils also vary in terms of the involvement of the chair. In Department One the chair is advised by the committed, excluded from attending CAC meetings, and does not nominate faculty to serve on CAC. In Department Two the chair is also advised by CAC but can appoint four of the five members who serve on the committee. And in Department Three the chair is an ex-officio member of CAC and may meet with or without the chair. Another variation in the councils relates to who may vote and attend. Department One holds closed CAC meetings and only CAC members may vote. Department Two CAC meetings are also closed and although the chair may attend, they cannot vote. Department Three holds open CAC meetings but only CAC members 130 may vote. The department chairs in this study must work through their CAC in some fashion or another when seeking to change and implement FTNTTF policies and practices at the department level. While the structure and processes of the councils may limit the influence of the chair, chairs have extensive influence specific to the hiring and review processes of FTNTTF. While the chairs in this study are bound to operate between standards set forth by the college (and university) and the department, they have the most direct and regular contact with FTNTTF. Generally, in the hiring process, chairs, being responsible for budgets, personnel, and academic endeavors at the department level, seek to align the needs of the department with the best candidate. Chairs work with college administrators to approve FTNTTF hires, often serve on FTNTTF search committees, and negotiate contract terms with FTNTTF and the university. Additionally, in the review process, chairs often are responsible for reviewing FTNTTF work. Depending on the policies and practices in place, chairs may have a significant role in the review process and may meet individually with the faculty under review, conduct classroom observations of FTNTTF, and review annual faculty activity reports. Alternatively, the chair’s role may be complementary to a more rigorous review process managed through the work of a peer-review committee (as in Department Two). Related, the chair may advocate for clear and more transparent review practices at the department level if bylaws and practices are unclear or non-existent. This type of advocacy occurred in all three departments in this study. As in the case with Departments Two and Three, chairs may also elect to employ mentoring strategies for FTNTTF. Here, these chairs advocated for mentoring protocols to be formally established in the department bylaws and/or the chair elected to employ more informal mentoring practices. All three chairs encouraged FTNTTF to meet with them 131 periodically to check in on their professional growth and career advancement interests, and chairs made FTNTTF aware of other mentoring resources at the college and university. In Department One, the chair ultimately seeks to hire the strongest candidates best fitted for the position. She also looks for creative ways to valorize the extra service that FTNTTF perform and to equate that contribution to the review process that could potentially lead to promotion and increased pay for FTNTTF. Furthermore, she intentionally tries to pair FTNTTF with “high status” faculty as a means of providing FTNTTF professional growth opportunities through mentoring and collaboration. This strategy may explain why faculty in Department One view the role of chair as a key connector and someone who is willing to resolve issues instead of glossing over them. In Department Two, the chair has many faculty who have joint appointments and finds assessing FTNTTF who perform work in two departments to be challenging. Throughout the review process, he employs a peer-review process as much as possible and seeks advisement from across all the faculty. And in case of joint appointments, he also gathers input from the other department (or unit) to include in the faculty review. Perhaps due to the uniqueness of Department Two, faculty in this department believe that the chair should have a clear understanding of departmental needs, be a good communicator, be strategic in negotiating faculty contracts, and be involved in all faculty reviews. Furthermore, the FTNTTF in Department Two believe mentoring practices could be enhanced and see mentoring as an area for growth. In Department Three, the chair embraces a different approach. Regarding FTNTTF, she believes she must look at how things fit together and relate to one another. She also believes that it is her prerogative to incentivize. This approach may explain why the faculty participants in this 132 department believe the chair “directs” all matters of the department. According to one participant, the chair post is filled by TTF who “cycle in and out.” As such, the role of chair is also driven by the personality of the individual assuming the role. The last sub-question explored in this study was, what role does the department chair play in the processes or approaches employed at the departmental level related to professional development for FTNTTF? This study found that chairs have significant influence when it comes to professional development for FTNTTF. Even with limited budgets, often, chairs have the authority to approve departmental monies for professional development opportunities for FTNTTF. This authority includes approving departmental funds as incentives that reward the significant service contribution many FTNTTF perform outside of their contract terms. Additionally, chairs often have the ability to nominate and/or approve FTNTTF for special professional development opportunities such as leadership development initiatives, administrative roles, committee work, and conference attendance. Furthermore, some chairs may also be able to negotiate professional development funding for research and conference attendance as part of the FTNTTF contract terms. However, as demonstrated in this study, FTNTT ultimately have the choice of what professional opportunities they decide to pursue. Thus, the role of the chair regarding professional development can be both discretionary and advisory. In Department One, the chair works hard to negotiate FTNTTF contract terms and to provide incentives for funding for professional development, especially those opportunities that might tie directly to teaching. The faculty participants in Department One look to the chair to approve, support, and encourage their professional development. 133 In Department Two, the chair shared that he approves professional development money for all faculty. In his view, this approach helps to bring transparency to funding for career growth opportunities. The faculty participants in Department Two look to the chair to make them and their work more visible. One way that both Department One and Two chairs employ their influence is by pairing or helping faculty “network” within and beyond the department. This network could be through professional development via committee work or special projects related to their work. Furthermore, the faculty in Department Two believe that it is critical to link the creation of new courses to professional development opportunities for FTNTTF. Without the chair’s involvement and input, they believe their contribution to creating valuable new content could go unrewarded. In Department Three, the chair, like her fellow chairs in this study, often looks for creative ways to approve money for professional development because of the heavy committee work faculty perform that is mostly seen as service. She feels strongly that professional development can “help narrate a FTNTTF’s review story” when under review for promotion. Furthermore, the chair works hard to promote FTNTTF to administrative leadership roles and is willing to collaborate with them on research projects. The faculty participants in Department Three feel strongly that the chair is most responsible for approving professional development opportunities. These faculty reported that professional development opportunities are readily available to them, but faculty must find them on your own, and that some leadership opportunities are not open to FTNTTF unless the chair requests special consideration be given to FTNTTF to apply. In summary, this study shows that the role of the chair, be it limited in some regards, is critical to FTNTTF. Chairs are bound by structures beyond their control and often employ 134 collective decision-making practices. Yet, the chair serves as an essential leader, colleague, mentor, and advocate for FTNTTF while balancing the many expectations that come with post. In many regards, the role of the chair is both discretionary and advisory and serves as a central interlocutor for FTNTTF. Furthermore, the role of the chair is often personality driven. The chair’s individual personality, strengths, experiences, and styles may determine how active or passive of a response they take in matters regarding FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures. A chair’s individual personality may also influence their effectiveness to secure buy-in from others, however, this buy-in is especially needed when working across differences to enact change regarding FTNTTF. Unanticipated Findings While some findings in this study may have been anticipated, there are several unanticipated findings to report. Specifically, there are five items that are noteworthy when reflecting on the role of the chair and FTNTTF workplace policies, practices, and cultures. 1. Role of college-level leadership. While this study primarily examined the role of the department chair, I did not expect to hear dialogue about college-level leaders. Nearly all participants referenced the role of the chair along with other higher-level administrators, mainly deans, but also the provost. This was unanticipated, but a critical finding when thinking about addressing the needs of FTNTTF. 2. Related, the special task force (STF) created by the college to examine FTNTTF workplace policies, practices, and cultures was an unexpected finding. This study exposed the ways in which the role of the STF intersect with the role and influence 135 of the chair. The STF may serve as a model for others looking to take on FTNTTF matters in a caring, committed, and inclusive way, and at various levels. 3. The college was actively pursuing ways to create a more caring and inclusive workplace and it was unexpected that these efforts would intersect with this research. Specifically, it was not known that an associate dean was leading these efforts and would participate in this study. 4. A FTNTTF union exists at this institution, however, not all FTNTTF are union members nor restricted to the union negotiating on their behalf. One group of FTNTTF are more bound and protected by the union, while the other group of FTNTTF are less protected but have more flexibility to negotiate their contracts at the department level. The FTNTTF in the union value its protections and bargaining power, along with having a community of other faculty like themselves. And the FTNTTF not in the union value the freedom to negotiate with workload terms, allowing them to create a more tailored career path. However, in either case, FTNTTF contract terms relating to teaching responsibilities would require the involvement of the union, the faculty member, and the department chair. 5. The FTNTTF rank is already a misunderstood group. In conducting this study, I was surprised to learn that at this institution there is yet another layer of mystery and complication for this rank of faculty. There are two types of FTNTTF, which are similar but different (Appendix D). For chairs, having two types of FTNTTF appointments to understand, manage, and lead adds to the complexity and demands of the post. The chairs in this study commented on the challenges they regularly face in simply understanding the differences in FTNTTF types. In turn, chairs face 136 challenges working with others who may also not fully understand the differences, in addition to working with outdated, and in some cases, non-existent policies for these two faculty groups. Summary of Findings This study found that chairs serve a central and influential role in the life and work of FTNTTF. Chairs, the associate dean, and faculty participants shared that there is a great need for revisions to the FTNTTF review process, as well as attention towards more equitable workload expectations. Participants also highlighted where change is already under way through college task forces, revisions of policies and practice, and the creation of more caring communities. Participants expressed the need for a leader who is willing to invest in the change efforts. Furthermore, the participants noted challenges chairs face in working with limited resources , outdated systems and policies, interpersonal differences, and some of the costs and opportunities associated with change. Finally, participants acknowledged that the change process is slow, uneven, messy, and hard work. This study found that chairs may model, call for, lead, and oversee efforts to update FTNTTF policies and practices. Chairs may influence efforts by bringing clarity and transparency to FTNTTF policies and practices. Specifically, chairs influence the revision process for organizational structures and bylaws, faculty contracts, and the FTNTTF review process. For example, chairs may reclassify and renegotiate FTNTTF contracts to better match their work and interests and to position FTNTTF for more stable employment. Chairs may also approve department monies to address inequities in service, pay, and opportunities for professional growth. This study found that chairs may employ their positional and relational influences to advocate for FTNTTF. 137 Chairs play an important role in creating and fostering caring communities for FTNTTF, especially at the departmental level. This study found that chairs may influence and encourage efforts that boost morale, unify, valorize, enfranchise, and energize FTNTTF members. Chairs may themselves ascribe to attitudes and preferences that are more collegial in nature and open to more inclusive practices. This study found that the chair’s role is central to and influential in creating opportunities for changes in FTNTTF policies, practices, and cultures. Navigating these changes have presents costs, challenges, and opportunities. Chairs often work with limited resources. Due to established structures, chairs also must work in concert with others, forming a collective effort, at various levels like department committees and college initiatives. A collaborative approach is common and likely a necessary endeavor to influence FTNTTF policies, practice, and workplace cultures. Collective approaches and collaborative efforts may also present challenges for chairs related to interpersonal dynamics. 138 CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION The increased hiring of FTNTTF within higher education beckons a review of policies, practices, and work cultures in order to ensure that this growing group of faculty is supported and included within the profession. Department chairs are uniquely positioned to lead in advancing efforts that address this need. The purpose of this study was to explore how the role of department chair influences policy, practice, and cultural changes regarding full-time non-tenure track faculty work in higher education. Specifically, this study answered the following research questions. Research Question(s) The primary research question was, what role does the department chair play (e.g., establishing, managing, changing) regarding FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures? The study answered the following four sub-questions: 1. What role does the department chair play in the processes or approaches employed at the department level in developing a collegial culture regarding FTNTTF? 2. What role does the department chair play in the processes or approaches employed at the department level in enacting shared-governance practices and policies (e.g., departmental, college, institutional levels) regarding FTNTTF? 3. What role does the department chair play in the processes or approaches employed at the department level regarding the development and implementation of assessment of policies and practices (e.g., departmental, college, institutional levels) related to FTNTTF? 139 4. What role does the department chair play in the processes or approaches employed at the department level related to professional development for FTNTTF? This qualitative study provides first-hand evidence from a case-study approach on how the role of department chair influences FTNTTF policies, practices, and cultures. This study explored more closely the role of the department chair regarding the everyday work life of FTNTTF and the mechanisms that guide their work. This study looked at both the role and influence of the department chair and the nature and needs of FTNTTF. This study was framed by two theories: institutional change theory (ICT) and the social change model (SCM). The first theory, ICT, is a framework to interpret how leaders, through collaborative relationships with others, create change that benefits or improves the condition for others. Through the power of their own voices, this study allowed participants to be heard. Sharing their lived experiences contributes to the scholarship on the role of department chair. Department chairs, tenure-track faculty, and full-time non-tenure-track faculty from three departments within the same college, and an associate dean in the college at a large public institution participated in this study. This study revealed that the department chair can play a key role when it comes to FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures. Chairs sought to employ creative approaches to influence FTNTTF workplace conditions. Related, FTNTTF look to the chair for support and guidance, a willingness to take risks on their behalf, and a demonstrated commitment to building community. Participants sought a community that was welcoming to all, while fostering mutual respect, boosting morale, and valorizing all faculty through formal and informal inclusive practices. 140 While the chair often is in the most direct and recurrent contact with FTNTTF, they may be bound by structures beyond their control. These structures limit their influence. Additionally, chairs may elect to employ approaches that directly impact FTNTTF but chairs do not act alone when attempting to change the status quo. The findings show that the efforts towards more supportive and inclusive environments for FTNTTF are most often collective efforts that require significant commitment, take time, and do not progress without champions at various levels of influence. In Chapter 5, I offer further discussion on the findings, highlight theoretical and practical implications, share limitations to the study, and provide a conclusion to this research endeavor, including recommendations for future studies. The Role of Chairs Regarding FTNTTF In this section I discuss the role of the department chair regarding FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures, as well as the change process. The Chair’s Role and Influence The findings of this study support the scholarship that department chairs serve an important purpose and that they can have a direct influence on FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures. The influence of the department chair can directly impact FTNTTF workplace policies, practices, and cultures in a variety of ways. The chair, as chief administrative officer at the local level, has oversight of every function of their department and a special obligation to build a strong department through supporting faculty work, mentoring, guiding, and building community. 141 Chairs can help to lead discussions on, adherence to, and modification of department policies and practices. The chair, as leader of the department, organizes (solely or in consultation with faculty) faculty meetings and sets agendas. In their role, chairs are responsible for ensuring their department adheres to institutional and departmental governance structures and documents. Chairs are responsible for leading efforts towards making changes to department bylaws and organizational structures when necessary and appropriate, and through established protocols and processes set forth by the institution, the college, and their department. In efforts to change FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures, the chair may call for and encourage changes to the department’s organizational documents that could include clearly identifying and explaining the role and work of FTNTTF. The chair, in consultation with others and in accordance with the bylaws, may call for and encourage changes to the department’s organizational plan that includes FTNTTF representation on committees. Chairs can help to ensure FTNTTF rights as regular faculty to have equal voice and vote in department matters. This equality is especially important when considering policies and practices that directly impact FTNTTF such as contracts, the review process, and faculty searches. By employing approaches in these ways, chairs may be able to influence change efforts, model collegiality, and demonstrate a commitment to the work and well-being of all members of the department community, even if the change process is tense and slow. Part of the department chair’s role and responsibility is to support the work of faculty and to advocate on their behalf, and that includes advocating for FTNTTF. Chairs, as mid-level leaders, “navigate between the poles” of higher administration and faculty. For example, chairs may negotiate faculty contract terms to address workload expectations related to teaching, research, and service. Chairs, depending on their mindset and personality, may look for creative 142 ways to use their limited budgetary resources to incentivize and reward their faculty. At times, the search for solutions requires the chair to work within various structures and bylaws and between the local-level and leadership beyond the department. Participants shared that the chair’s willingness and commitment to negotiate FTNTTF contracts that align more with their work afforded them choice and flexibility, boosted morale, valorized their work, conveyed a message of collegiality, and ultimately benefited students. In their role in building strong departments and supporting the faculty, chairs may employ their positional and relational influence, acting as a mentor and guide, to connect FTNTTF to critical resources such as professional development opportunities and funding that can enhance and advance their career path. The chair, through their networking influence, can help FTNTTF connect with others to expand their experiences and make their work more visible. These efforts include nominating FTNTTF to serve on committees (where organizational structures allow), encouraging FTNTTF to collaborate on projects and initiatives of interest, approving funding for professional development endeavors, and considering FTNTTF for leadership roles within and outside of the department. By employing their influence in these ways, chairs provide support that helps to advance and elevate the role and work of FTNTTF. The chair influences environments (Amey, 2006). The role of the chair includes being responsible for the daily health of the department (Miller & Morrison, 2008; Rosser, 2000). The chair can foster a more caring and inclusive community by helping to ensure the basic needs of faculty and staff are met. For FTNTTF, this includes being supported in their work. That support encompasses work flexibility, fair review practices, job security, teaching resources, professional development opportunities, having a sense-of-belonging, being respected, and ensuring safe working conditions (Gappa et al., 2007). The chair, by championing FTNTTF work, fighting for 143 fair, equitable, and inclusive FTNTTF policies and practices, modeling collegiality, and fostering a caring community can influence how FTNTTF are viewed by others. This, in turn, affects the well-being of FTNTTF (Ott & Cisneros, 2015). When department chairs support and advocate for FTNTTF in these ways, everyone benefits. The findings in this study build on existing evidence that chairs may often be central and pivotal to change. Chairs may influence FTNTTF policies, practices, and cultures (Kezar 2012), including their positional and relational influence to connect and elevate FTNTTF (Kezar & Lester, 2009). Data from this study suggest that chairs can better influence the implementation of the policies rather than the content of the policies. The specifications of the policies are often decided elsewhere via unions or other academic governance structures. The findings of this study also highlight the many expectations associated with the chair role. Department chairs are expected to be skilled in community-building, effective with team and collective efforts, engage in decision-making that is fair, inclusive, and timely, while also being able to work across difference and willing to take risks. The chair is expected to advocate for those under their supervision, and especially for the most vulnerable. There is a sundry of expectations for the department chair, some of which are more formally defined in institutional documents, some that are placed on them by others, and perhaps even some they place on themselves. Furthermore, the chair post needs its own support structures and mentorship to effectively carry out their work, meet the myriad of expectations, and manage the pressures associated with the role (Austin & Sorcinelli, 2013; Gonaim, 2016). Added to the mix, the chair posts have term limits both in years per term and the number of consecutive terms allowed as noted in the college and department bylaws. Chair term limits could result in high turnover, potentially limiting the influence a chair may have on FTNTTF policies, practices, and work 144 cultures. When a chair exits the role, they take with them institutional knowledge, and familiarity with systems and processes. While the chair can influence FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures, the reality is their influence is limited due to constraints and unrealistic expectations of the post. Perhaps many of the expectations and potential influence of the chair might be obtainable and evident if the right person is in the post, at the right time, for the right amount of time. However, it might be more realistic to depict the chair’s role as potentially influential due to things they may or may not be able to control. A chair may or may not elect to employ approaches to address FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures. The demands of the job may limit the amount of time and energy they can give to a single issue. The amount of time they have as chair may limit their ability to significantly influence changes to the status quo. Change can be an arduous process, especially when attempting radical change. The person serving as chair has unique abilities, personal preferences, and their own individual style. They may elect to prioritize their work to focus on other areas not related to FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures as they balance the expectations that come with the post. They may elect to focus on matters they feel more apt to take on and delegate initiatives and special projects to others who may have more experience, expertise, and/or time. They may elect to avoid conflict and ignore challenging issues. They may be less comfortable with taking risks. They may prefer the status quo. FTNTTF Work, Needs, and Expectations The findings of this study highlight the fact that FTNTTF do important work and contribute in significant ways to the mission of universities, colleges, and departments. At the same time, this study aligns with the scholarship on FTNTTF that reports this group of faculty have similar needs to TTF (Gappa el al., 2005, 2007). Further, FTNTTF require commitment at 145 the highest level to perform at their best (Bland et al., 2006; Kezar, 2013b; Kezar & Maxey, 2014; O’Meara, Kaufman & Kuntz, 2003). The participants in this study and scholars report that collegiality, community, and connections are needed to legitimize and empower FTNTTF (Alleman & Haviland, 2017; Haviland et al., 2017; Kezar and Lester, 2009; Komives and Wagner, 2016; Ott & Cisneros, 2015; Waltman et al., 2012). These elements could be cultivated and established through the alignment of important policies or institutional documents with a thorough examination of practices in regards to FTNTTF working conditions. For example, revisions that include FTNTTF in shared governance and collective decision-making practices, having clear and transparent hiring and review processes, offering multi-year contracts that also allow for choice and flexibility in negotiating the terms, providing professional development opportunities, and ensuring a culture of care that valorizes all members. When these elements are in place, they help to provide job security, a sense of belonging, academic freedom, professional growth, and a healthy working environment for FTNTTF. As was the case in Department Two, there are pockets of work environments that are supportive and inclusive of FTNTTF. Other workplaces and experiences for FTNTTF are hostile and demeaning, leaving FTNTTF “viewed as secondary.” Where formal structures and policies were more aligned to FTNTTF work, participants reported feeling supported, valued, and a part of the community. In these instances, participants credited their chairs and colleagues who fought for them and took risks. In another instance, a participant credited a college dean who is an “ally.” As one participant shared, even small changes show that change is possible. Through informal, collaborative interactions, participants reported building unity across the ranks, an energizing of faculty work, as well as a boost in morale. In these instances, participants credited their chairs for focusing on FTNTTF needs and common interests. They credit chairs for finding 146 creative ways to support their work and that of the department. These approaches employed by the chair, in collaboration with others, help to build a more robust and caring community. Yet, some FTNTTF reported feeling like second-class citizens. For these participants, the formal and informal structures mentioned above are either “in progress” or “lacking” in some way. For some participants, they shared that although their chair has helped to lead efforts towards more inclusive and supportive policies, practices, and work cultures for FTNTTF, the tensions, “gaps,” and “division” across the ranks have impeded the change process. This has left important revisions to bylaws either partially done or not touched at all because of differences and power imbalances. For a few participants, they shared that they feel more connected and supported by the college and university because of the recent creation of two task forces that are focusing on issues of academic bullying, power imbalances, and to restore faculty governance. These participants believe the deans have more power to influence change than department chairs. Although FTNTTF are a sizable number of today’s faculty, including the faculty composition of the departments in this study, uneven, inconsistent, unstable, and unhealthy working conditions continue for this growing group of faculty (Haviland et al., 2017; Waltman et al., 2012). And despite the good work of chairs and other leaders, like those in this study, the basic needs of FTNTTF are still not being met, hindering their work and student learning (Levin & Shafer, 2011; Kezar 2013b; Kezar & Maxey, 2014). This is likely due to systemic issues, some of which have formed over time creating long-standing traditions that are barriers to progress and change. These structures and forces exist beyond the role and influence of the chair. And for chairs and others who elect to pursue change efforts to FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures in the face of these challenges, they report being committed to the cause but 147 overwhelmed by the task. However, the chairs in this study credit the leadership and support of one of the associate deans leading FTNTTF change efforts at the college level. In one chair’s view, “the most incredible thing [this person] has done is bring things into the light.” Change Efforts While the chair often is in the most direct and recurrent contact with FTNTTF, rarely do they act alone, are the sole champion, advocate, or mentor for this group of faculty. In this study, the chairs described their role as “finding creative solutions” to problems and meeting the needs of faculty and administrators. They described their decision-making as collective and involving others (advisory groups, working with deans and upper-level administrators) (Roper & Deal, 2010). As one chair described “decisions that are made are a series of little decisions made by lots and lots of different people over time.” Additionally, some participants looked to others such as deans and unions to influence change to FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures. The college leadership, in efforts to address crucial topics in a timely manner and at a level that they could influence change, created task forces to examine power imbalances in the college and improve working conditions for FTNTTF. The task forces were made up of college leaders, chairs, and representative faculty (TTF and FTNTTF). Starting at the highest levels, collegial practices valorize and demonstrate a commitment to FTNTTF (Haviland, et al., 2017). These task forces employed collegial practices to ensure a more inclusive and respectful working culture for FTNTTF. College leaders asked department chairs to nominate FTNTTF to serve on the task force. The FTNTTF had the choice to accept the opportunity or not, and for the FTNTTF who did participate, this afforded them the chance to directly influence and impact policies, practices, and cultures that apply to them (FTNTTF). FTNTTF serving on the task 148 force work alongside chairs, TTF, and college leadership. Together, this group is creating recommendations to the FTNTTF review process, considering salary inequities, and collecting feedback from FTNTTF. The group is also addressing more simple things like adding a faculty advocate for FTNTTF to be a part of contract negotiations. For Participant 9, serving on this task force introduced her to how budgets work. Being able to work alongside fellow FTNTTF and with chairs made her “feel a part of something,” and she said that the “open and respectful” dialogues were greatly needed both on the topic at hand (FTNTTF review processes) and in building rapport across ranks and between departments, college leadership, and faculty. One chair in this study shared how serving on the task force has helped her to better understand the larger FTNTTF issues. For her, being a part of the task force efforts to influence change to the review process has encouraged her. While there have been challenges within her department that are impeding progress (at the department level) on aligning FTNTTF policies and practices to reflect more accurately and fairly their work and contribution, the task force is providing a vehicle for change. This shared-responsibility and decision-making model is an example of how collegial practices can give equal importance and voice to all, creating a more transparent and equitable working culture. Additionally, collegial practices like those demonstrated by the task forces can foster mutual respect. The task forces also employed collaborative practices to ensure a more supportive, fair, and open working culture for FTNTTF. For Participant 11, being invited to have her “voice be included in the process” and to be a representative for other FTNTTF “who feel unwelcomed, uninformed, and marginalized” is helping to “destigmatize the role of [FTNTTF].” In attempts to ensure that everyone is informed, the task force sends their recommendations to a listserv 149 received by all faculty instead of through the chairs. Furthermore, this participant credits the efforts of the task force for “equaliz[ing] and recogniz[ing] that everybody has an important voice.” She added that now “the dean needs to push it forward from there.” Participants on the task forces shared how collective and collaborative practices showed commitment from the college-level and built trust with FTNTTF. Participant 14, FTNTTF on the task force, refers to the associate dean who is ex-officio on the task force as an “ally” due to their connections to the provost. Collaborative practices employed by the task forces have helped to foster community. These endeavors validate community members and create a healthier, more caring working culture (Komives & Wagner, 2016). The task forces in this study are good examples of both finding community and fostering more collegial and collaborative practices that can influence FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures. Change of this size and magnitude may require a collective front and a team of champions as the social change leadership theory suggests. A leader and advocate at the local- level willing to fight and take risks is crucial. And for institutional change to long standing traditions, for transitions to new ways of thinking and working, a collective effort is necessary. Summary: Chairs, FTTNF, and Change In summary, the role of chair is central and necessary to the life and work of FTNTTF. The chair is responsible for supporting the work of FTNTTF, but the chair’s influence is limited due to structures beyond their control. Chairs may have discretionary power in certain instances but most often they must collaborate with others when striving to build a strong department. Additionally, this study reaffirmed that FTNTTF do important work, have unique needs, and look to the chair and other leaders to support their work and to advocate on their behalf. 150 Furthermore, the study revealed that change efforts must be collective, especially when seeking to change the status quo. Theoretical Implications In this section I discuss the implications of the two theories used to frame this study on the role of chairs and FTNTTF: social change leadership theory and institutional change theory. Social Change Leadership Theory According to the social change leadership theory (SCLT), a change agent is needed to help lead and implement change to the status quo. Embedded within the social change model is the core value and influence of collaborative relationships (Komives & Wagner, 2016). Furthermore, the SCLT promotes the development of social change agents who address and solve community problems (Crawford et al., 2000). “Leadership emerges as perhaps the more important facilitator” (Kezar, 2018b, p. 133) for change. In short, SCLT focuses on creating change through active collaboration for a better society. The findings of this study strongly support the SCLT theory. This study found that chairs were influential in leading change to FTNTTF policies, practices, and cultures, even if in limited ways. The chairs in this study were responsible for leading their departments through bylaw revisions that included restructuring organizationally, allowing FTNTTF to serve on committees, take on leadership roles, and in some departments FTNTTF can now vote on department matters. The chairs are leading discussions to revise the review process for FTNTTF at departmental and college levels. Furthermore, some chairs in this study were described as leaders working to build a community and create a “friendly” place to work. One participant shared that her chair "worked really, really hard on our behalf to change the culture" that had been harsh, divisive, and bullyish. Others described their chairs as “all about action” and “relentless” in pushing for 151 improvements for FTNTTF. One participant shared that the chair’s support “was essential” for him in taking on a new leadership role within the department. Further still, chairs can serve as a model for collegiality, as demonstrated by the chairs in this study who worked to find ways to incentivize and reward the work of their FTNTTF. The data from this study show that the efforts towards more supportive and inclusive environments and experiences for FTNTTF are most often collective, require significant commitment, take time, and do not progress without a champion(s). For example, the chairs in this study worked with faculty in their department and college leaders to enact changes to FTNTTF policies. One chair shared that she is committed to changing how FTNTTF are treated. For her, to continue to ask faculty to do extra work for no pay “is a crappy thing to do.” When she became chair, she decided to offer the same research funding to FTNTTF that they provide for tenure stream faculty. Another chair wrote to the dean to argue for FTNTTF to have leadership opportunities, like those afforded to TTF, that would advance their career paths. The dean gave approval, opening more opportunities for professional growth for FTNTTF. And as another chair shared, FTNTTF “need to be treated as human beings, professionals. There needs to be some understanding of sanity and mutual respect.” The chairs acting and thinking in these ways aligns with SCLT. Change agents are necessary when attempting to change the status quo. Furthermore, for FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures to become more supportive and inclusive, a champion for the cause is required (Quinn, 2007; Watt, 2009). A champion or change agent is required because the two-tier structure in higher education has created power imbalances that marginalize and disenfranchise FTNTTF (Quinn, 2007; Kezar & Maxey, 2015). A champion or change agent is needed to create a collective force to help enact change that benefits others. Thus, many faculty expect their chair to be their champion, to 152 advocate on their behalf, and to fight for them. At the same time, the chair might look to other chairs, TTF, and to the dean’s office to collaborate with them in order to bring more authority and power to their efforts. And ideally, the dean will champion faculty issues to the provost. In some cases, a stronger, more strategic collective effort, like a task force, or perhaps in other cases a union, might also collaborate to champion and advocate for improvements to FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures. In most scenarios, the department chair is a key interlocutor for FTNTTF issues. Without a champion like the department chair at the local unit, FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures most likely will continue to be outdated, mis-aligned, unfair, unequal, hostile, and unhealthy. The chair is the leader who works most closely with faculty, has the best opportunity to connect and build trust with FTNTTF, interacts most often with them, has the access and insights into the daily work life of FTNTTF, and the greatest connections to others in key roles outside of the department. This positioning implies that the department chair is the most logical change agent to lead the efforts towards change to FTNTTF policies, practices, and cultures. However, as the SCLT claims and as the findings of this study imply, rarely does the chair act alone. But rather, the chair collaborates with others to strengthen the changes efforts (Roper & Deal 2010). Other leaders may elect to step-up to fill in the gaps in leadership at the local-level and build coalitions with other key leaders to influence change to FTNTTF policies, practices, and cultures that would reflect a more committed, collegial, and caring community. However, other leadership theories may challenge the notion that a change agent is needed, as the SCLT purports. Other theories like situational leadership theory or distributive leadership theory might also apply. Other leadership theories may lend insight into the type of leadership needed to make change. 153 Situational leadership theory, created by Paul Hershey and Ken Blanchard (1969), claims that leaders adopt a particular style to fit the need or situation. While elements of this theory might apply to individual leaders who wish to use different approaches to produce certain results in a given moment, the SCLT purports that changing the status quo requires a change agent and collective leadership efforts. In comparison to situational leadership, SCLT does not focus on an individual style or single situation. Rather SCLT focuses on leading change efforts that are collective in nature and plays to the strengths of many for the benefit of others. Instead of focusing on a single leader who must be ever changing in their approach, like that in situational leadership, SCLT focuses on a larger, shared goal or community issue and operates through collaborations and coalitions that foster collegiality and community in the change process. Likewise, distributive leadership, a theoretical shift from individual-centered theories like situational leadership, claims leadership and decision-making is done as a collective, with multiple actors, taking risks and action towards a particular outcome (Bolden, 2011). While much of this theory may overlap with some of the ideas associated with collaborative efforts found in SCLT, distributive leadership has faded away for more modern theories such as SCLT and transformational leadership theory. Where several of these theories overlap is in the role of a leader, or leadership, to influence others. SCLT is well aligned with the findings of this study because it calls for shared leadership that is both top-down and bottom-up. While an agent or collective leadership effort might be the impetus for change for FTNTTF, in the end it requires a chair or leader that is a change agent and a concerted effort from many who represent various stakeholders in the enterprise and who are committed to enacting change for a better society. For FTNTTF, they look to their department, college, and university leaders to be committed to supporting their work 154 and including them as full members of the community. FTNTTF often desire to be a part of the change efforts alongside others who share in the mission of the cause and with those who have influence, ability, and are committed to valorizing their role and work. This effort requires leaders and individuals coming together and finding ways to work across differences for a better society. In this case, that better society relates to improved faculty experiences, strong programs, healthier working environments, and student success. Creating more supportive and inclusive FTNTTF policies, practices, and cultures through collegial, collaborative, and community- building approaches, like those described in SCLT, build agency and more equitable outcomes. An extension of SCLT is that faculty and educational leadership can model and train students to lead and enact change in a civil, collegial, and collaborative way that, in turn, builds more caring, kinder, and better societies in the future. Institutional Change Theory In institutional change theory (ICT), a three-stage process describing how institutions change, can be used to map efforts and progress towards long-term change, or change to the status quo (Curry, 1992). A key factor in the ICT is that of leaders working collaboratively towards institutionalizing a particular issue, project, or practice. Present in ICT are a developed rationale for the needed change and a well-crafted action plan, such as a clear agenda and an incremental approach (Kezar, 2012b). Clearly, higher education has shifted with the increased hiring of FTNTTF who now constitute the growing majority of full-time faculty. This shift positions FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures at the forefront. The administrators and faculty in this study are aware of this change, and acknowledge that the current policies, practices, and cultures do not align with what FTNTTF do. One chair shared, “the bylaws need work.” And another chair when 155 talking about the FTNTTF review process said, “[it] need[s] criteria that is reasonable, open, transparent, written down, not mysterious.” Furthermore, current policies, practices and cultures are not equitable, inclusive, or respectful. While there are pockets of progress on this front, such as the task forces described in this study, the fact remains that when organizing change efforts for FTNTTF, there rarely is a well-crafted plan with a clear agenda, let alone an incremental approach laid out. However, ICT can be utilized in two ways. First, the theory allows for the mapping of change efforts into one of its three stages of mobilization, implementation, or institutionalization. Secondly, the theory allows for the organization of change efforts to help ensure institutionalization. Institutionalization, the final stage of change, marks the end of the process and recognizes that the changes are now the norm. For changes to FTNTTF policies, practices, and cultures to reach the final stage, hiring and review practices would have to be realigned to match FTNTTF work. Shared governance structures that give FTNTTF equal voice and vote would have to be ratified and be in regular use. Reaching the stage of institutionalization would mean that institutions are committed to meeting the needs of FTNTTF. It also signals full support of their role and recognition of their contributions to the enterprise of higher education. Institutionalizing FTNTTF changes in this way deconstructs existing hierarchies, disarms power imbalances, and rights inequities in exchange for building new, more inclusive structures that give agency to all faculty. It results in FTNTTF being treated as equal members of society. The college and departments in this study appear to be ICT’s stage two, implementation. During this implementation stage, barriers are most prevalent, and progress often gets stalled. For example, departments may aspire to make changes to their bylaws, but tensions arise between those who are promoting changes and those who want policies and practices to stay the 156 same. In one department in this study, the TTF continue to push against any change that would allow FTNTTF voting rights. One participant shared that some groups are “policing" the bylaws, and their department meetings become "tense discussions.” In this department, “even the little changes rile people up.” Similarly, the task force described in this study has been working on revisions to the FTNTTF review process for 18 months. Now, the task force must make a formal presentation to the college with the recommended changes. The formal process of seeking approval from the next level (the dean) extends the change process for an even longer duration of time. The departments in this study can serve as an example as to the need and value in developing a clear and convincing rationale that is widely dispersed. It highlights a need for a strategic plan that includes a set of initiatives, goals, and a reasonable timeline to chart the approach and map progress. By approaching change to FTNTTF policies, practices, and cultures in this way, department chairs and other collaborators can create a clear and transparent path that also can be easily shared and transferred to others who may rotate in and out of the endeavor at various stages. This finding also aligns with ICT that recommends leaders work collaboratively, collecting information along the way to inform the process, in order to reach full reform. Lastly, it would be appropriate to use ICT as a guiding framework and reference to help those looking to change FTNTTF policies, practices, and cultures. As this study’s findings demonstrate, ICT can be paired with other leadership theories such as SCLT. ICT has useful applications for chairs and other leaders looking to enact change efforts (broadly as an institution or locally as a college or department) for more supportive and inclusive FTNTTF policies, practices, and cultures. Lastly, as many change theories highlight, and the findings in this study confirms, deep change is complex, time consuming, and a slow process. 157 Summary of Theoretical Implications In summary, the claims of the two theories used to frame this study were supported by the findings. Firstly, SCLT focuses on a change agent, collective leadership efforts, leadership that is both top-down and bottom-up, and change around a shared goal. These elements were evidenced in this study. SCLT claims that a change agent is needed, however, while it may be true is some instances, the findings for this study on the role of chairs shows that chairs often do not act alone but rather more through collective and collaborative approaches. This collective approach is also a tenant of SCLT. Secondly, ICT focuses on strategies for planning and mapping the change process. ICT could map directly onto each department to identify the stage of change and to assist in transitioning from stage to stage in order to achieve institutionalization. More so, ICT and the findings of this study show that change is complex, barriers and tensions are the greatest in stage two, and change takes time. Practical Implications Institutions and organizations concerned about FTNTTF workplace conditions and experiences can consider implementing several practices to meet the needs of this important group of faculty. In this section, I provide practical implications to consider in the following areas: collective and collaborative change efforts, clear and transparent communication strategies, and faculty workload balance in higher education more broadly. Collective and Collaborative Approaches Moving towards collective decision-making practices that include FTNTTF is needed at every level. According to a recent (2021) AAUP shared governance study on faculty roles by decision-making areas, it is a “mixed bag” when it comes to faculty involvement and shared 158 decision-making. The AAUP study indicates (comparing a similar study in 1971, 2001, and 2021) a decrease in faculty involvement with budgets (two-thirds of four-year institutions’ budgetary decisions have no faculty involvement) and little to no faculty involvement with allocations of faculty positions. There is an increase in faculty involvement at the local level, however, and faculty have more say in 2021 as to who their chair will be in comparison to 1971 (Flaherty, July 19, 2021). This new data adds to the complexity, challenges, and limitations that are associated with the chair’s role and influence on FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures. However, at the same time, the recent AAUP study supports the findings of this study. Chairs can influence change regarding FTNTTF at the department level and they are most likely to do so if collective and collaborative approaches are employed. At the department-level, revisions to bylaws that reflect shared governance are critical. Department chairs can provide leadership and oversight to the revision process to ensure FTNTTF are not only appropriately referenced in bylaws, but also a part of the process. Who better to define and describe FTNTTF than themselves? In the revising of text, FTNTTF should be given equal voice and vote, allowing them to contribute to discussion and be a part of decision-making, especially when it applies to and affects them. For example, FTNTTF should have an equal vote on all changes to department bylaws. FTNTTF should also be able to vote on all faculty hiring decisions since ultimately, they will be reviewed by faculty in their department. In revising organizational structures, FTNTTF should be factored into the structure in the same way as their TTF colleagues. FTNTTF should have the same opportunity to serve on committees and contribute equally to the endeavors of the department. FTNTTF should have a secure and regular role in revising their review process protocol to ensure the expectations, 159 process, and rewards best align with their work. The review process should include a review and evaluation by a group of their FTNTTF peers. Having fellow FTNTTF fully invested in the review process also helps address career advancement challenges. FTNTTF should have the same open invitation to attend and participate in all department functions as equal members of the community, including the ability to set meeting agendas and have voting rights. The chair can help to create open and respectful discussions within their unit, invite input from all, and commit to completing the revision process. Chairs may elect to employ collaborative efforts. Collaboration is necessary due to the nature of how the post is often defined and commonly bound by institutional structures that require chairs to consult and work with others. Also, chairs may elect to employ collaborative efforts to address power imbalances that exist in higher education and that marginalize FTNTTF. By choosing to lead and guide in this way, chairs can validate and empower others. Furthermore, chairs may elect to employ collaborative efforts to foster trust and build a more equitable and caring community. By choosing to lead and serve in this way, chairs can contribute to institutional, college, and department level efforts towards more supportive, equitable, and inclusive working environments for all members of the community. Faculty Workload Workload issues persist in higher education for all faculty (O’Meara, et al., 2021). Chairs and others are responsible for the review of faculty workload issues. Chairs have the power to negotiate pay and other rewards for extra work that FTNTTF perform that falls outside of their contract terms. According to participants in this study, FTNTTF do not have job security because they are not in the tenure system, making them “the most vulnerable” faculty group. 160 Additionally, participants shared that FTNTTF often take on extra work for no pay and feel they cannot say “no” for fear of a poor review and losing their job. Department chairs and other administrative leadership may desire to provide more stable and equitable employment for FTNTTF, but they may be limited in influence, power, and resources due to structural constraints and other factors beyond their control in correcting FTNTTF inequities. Chairs and others may seek to employ collective and collaborative approaches to implement new measures to address faculty workload issues. Some of these approaches include moving to a one-tier system where all full-time, regular faculty have the opportunity for tenure, incentivizing and rewarding extra service for any faculty who chooses to take on more work outside of their contract, increasing FTNTTF pay to parallel that of TTF, and putting caps on the number of committees faculty can serve one. These practices have the potential to improve FTNTTF productivity and well-being. Similar measures could be explored at the college and university levels. At the college- level, FTNTTF could have the same opportunities as TTF to serve on committees, task forces, and other governing bodies. In addition, FTNTTF could be offered the same opportunities to lead in roles such as director, assistant dean, or associate dean. Practicing collective decision-making top-bottom, bottom-top, and across, could prove an effective approach to ensure changes to FTNTTF policies, practices, and cultures happen at every level. As suggested by ICT, these measures could result in the institutionalization of a new normal. Likewise, chairs and college leaders can work together to include FTNTTF in the decision-making process. However, as mentioned, chairs (and other leaders) are limited in their influence and resources. A study by O’Meara et al. (2021) that supports the need for attention to faculty workload points to the department chair as the key influencer for change efforts at the 161 departmental level. Related, O’Meara et al., (2021) purport that faculty workload conditions fall into one of six “conditions” (“transparency” – bringing visibility to all; “clarity”; “credits” – rewards; “norms” – commitment; “context” – collective strengths; and “accountability – assessment measures). Chairs and others looking to bring change could start by looking at the kinds of workload goals they hope to achieve and then conduct an audit. Based upon their goals, the audit asks questions about existing workload data, processes, and procedures. Users then assess the extent to which these data, processes, or procedures are present within their institution or department. The audit guides users toward specific policies and practice handouts that would help users achieve their goal” (p. 11). The authors of this study also suggest chairs and others create an “equity plan” that can help “to diagnose and identify the most pressing equity issue or issues a department faces” (p. 15). Employing collective and collective decision-making practices and incorporating useful resources can afford chairs the necessary approaches and assessment tools to influence changes that help to ensure FTNTTF the most inclusive, supportive, and valorizing environment possible. Collective decision-making collaborative practices can convey messages of collegiality and a commitment to fair and equitable policies, practices, and work cultures for all. These practices have the potential to undo power imbalances and other inequities. Establishing collective and collaborative approaches in these ways may help institutions meet their missions, accomplish their goals, and make the entire enterprise stronger and more equitable. Communication Strategies There are several communication strategies that institutions and organizations can employ to send clear messages about who FTNTTF are and the importance of their work. Attention to nomenclature is critical. The various titles given to FTNTTF, many of which cast a 162 negative or degrading tone, are often confusing. Terms such as contingent, fixed term, non- tenure, contract, professional faculty, or professor of the practice are confusing, negative, and create division. A clear and consistent title that is understood by all is needed. Clarity and consistency with nomenclature transcends all disciplines, institution type, and is needed for every policy, process, practice that follows. Being known and understood is step one. Clarity and consistency in relaying that is step two. Social media platforms, like web pages, are another communication vehicle for intentional messaging about and projection of FTNTTF. The design and layout of web pages is an important consideration. How are FTNTTF referenced (with “adjuncts” or “other faculty”)? Where do they visually appear in faculty listings? And are FTNTTF work and contributions featured? Communication regarding FTNTTF, be it direct or indirect messaging, is critical to the life and health of this group of faculty. It matters how FTNTTF are “talked about.” Institutions and organizations can alleviate uncertainty, fears, and confusion around FTNTTF policies, practices, and cultures with improved communication strategies. Implementing clearly written policies provides clarity for everyone. Making policies accessible to all stakeholders fosters transparency. Paying careful attention to nomenclature and messaging practices demonstrates an open and caring community. Leadership who oversees and manage policies can lead in these efforts and serve as role models of good communication. Operating with clarity and transparency builds trust and trust builds community. Community Community is key. The chair can lead community-building efforts by modeling inclusive practices and cultures. For example, the chair can advocate to include FTNTTF in all matters of department life. The chair can help foster building a more cohesive and inclusive community by 163 leading and encouraging efforts to change FTNTTF policies and practices so that this group of faculty are supported and treated as regular class citizens. The chair can advocate (and in some instances organize directly) for department events, both formal and informal, to be open to all faculty. Departments, colleges, and institutions can elect to be committed to establishing mentoring programs designed to align FTNTTF work with the review processes and to build community with others across the campus. Departments, colleges, and institutions can elect to be committed to feature FTNTTF work on social media and in organized forums. Highlighting FTNTTF in this way elevates their role and makes their contributions visible to others. Chairs and deans could push to provide FTNTTF office spaces equal to and in the same physical spaces as their TTF colleagues. When faculty offices are in the same space, discussions among and between faculty are more likely when passing in the hallways, over a cup of coffee in the faculty lounge, or between meetings with students. Community-building efforts like these bring people together and can serve as unifying endeavors. Having a sense of belonging and finding community is paramount for a strong department. Without it, loneliness, feeling disconnected, unsupported, and invisible are commonly reported experiences for FTNTTF. Being a part of a community can counter these negative experiences. Communities that are more supportive and inclusive promote positive mental health and foster well-being for its members. Summary of Practical Implications In summary, the practical implications highlight four areas that were common across the department findings and relevant to the chair’s influence regarding FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures. First, collective and collaborative approaches may be employed due to the 164 constraints of the chair post or to counter power imbalances in order to enact change regarding FTNTTF working conditions. There are secondary benefits to these approaches such as legitimizing FTNTTF and building community. Second, faculty workload issues persist for FTNTTF. Chairs and other leaders may employ collective and collaborative strategies at varies level, along with incorporating assessment tools created to help address these concerns, to enact change efforts in this area for FTNTTF. Third, communication strategies can be revisited by chairs and others to examine how and where FTNTTF are referenced. Adjustments can be made accordingly to ensure messaging practices are clear, open, accurate, and caring. Lastly, community is key. Chairs can model and seek unifying practices to cultivate inclusive and supportive working conditions. And chairs can ensure safe and healthy working environments exist for all members. Future Research This study explored the role a chair may play regarding FTNTTF policies, practices, and cultures. Several key findings were identified and implications were discussed. However, other research extending from this study could be explored that would add to the scholarship on chairs and FTNTTF. Future research could focus on diversity and equity in chair searches, inclusivity initiatives and practices in higher education, faculty well-being, and the impact on students. Diversity and Equity This study found that further research on diversifying the chair selection may be merited. A few participants in this study shared their experiences with the selection of department chair. They described chair pools that lacked in heterogeneity. While the experience of one referent group cannot be considered representative of the broader pool of possible candidates for chair and noting that other non-identified factors could have been present, having diversity in 165 leadership is needed if institutions want to address matters of diversity and equity in faculty hires. Research on the pathway to department chair and the chair selection process may bring to light other types of inequities faculty experience. This future research could also include power imbalances that persist in higher education that affect faculty hires, promotion, and career advancement. Inclusion This study found that without mutual respect, a university, college, and/or department can become a fractured system. While the hiring of FTNTTF is common across higher education, many faculty in this group still feel disrespected, excluded, and mistreated. Participants in this study shared that even though there are pockets of progress from the change efforts underway in their department and within the college, gaps remain. For example, FTNTTF who participated in this study shared how changes made to departmental bylaws have provided voice, but many still do not have voting privileges on important matters that impact their work and well-being directly. Because of the lack of progress in fully aligning outdated policies, practices, and cultures that are more inclusive to all faculty, further research on inclusive structures and environments for faculty in higher education is warranted. When chairs elect to valorize FTNTTF and their work, it may create a healthier work environment and healthier faculty. Shared-Governance Participants described the challenges they experienced with efforts to bring faculty together to revise their department bylaws. Some departments reported being more successful than others, but all face obstacles of some kind. According to institutional change theory, when in the implementation stage (stage two), tension and barriers to the change process are to be 166 expected. Regardless, difficulties remain that can cause extreme stress for all (administrators, chairs, and faculty). Related, the recent study (AAUP, 2021) on faculty shared governance in higher education reports a “mixed bag” of faculty involvement in decision-making and the majority (63%) of budgetary matters have no faculty involvement (the study classifies chairs as faculty versus administrators). Chairs in this study report one of their greatest challenges is budgets, and one way they can influence FTNTTF policies, practices, and work cultures is approving professional development funding as an incentive and reward (when possible) for extra work performed outside of contract terms. Given these challenges, the value of shared governance practices, and chairs looking for creative ways to solve faculty workload issues, further research on the involvement of department chairs and budgetary decision-making is merited. Well-Being This study found that chairs are feeling “stressed” by the ever-increasing demands and expectations that come with being the chief departmental administrative officer and are looking for “sanity” as they serve in this important post. Chairs are key interlocuters to the life and health of departments and colleges. Chairs must solve problems and come up with creative solutions with limited, and in some cases, decreasing resources. Higher education is facing unprecedented challenges (Gonaim, 2016). Chairs are “stressed” by the sundry of expectations (and limited power) that comes with serving as department chair. As one chair in my study described, some level of “sanity” is needed. Future research on the well-being of chairs is merited. Related, this study noted FTNTTF do important work and contribute in significant ways. However, FTNTTF participants reported feeling overwhelmed and are concerned about the sustainability of their expected workloads that often include extra work, low pay, and a lack of 167 mentoring and support structures. These conditions left the FTNTTF feeling anxious, stressed, and dealing with the “trauma” of lack of care and support for years. Furthermore, the FTNTTF participants commented on their need to be respected and have their contributions validated. FTNTTF also desire flexibility in their work arrangements and a more caring community. Because of a long history of negative experiences, poor working conditions and unhealthy practices (reported in this study and in the literature on FTNTTF) (Alleman & Haviland, 2017; Drake et al., 2019; Haviland et al., 2017; O’Meara et al., 2021), further research on the well- being of FTNTTF is also warranted. Impact on Students This study found that chairs and faculty are committed to their work. Chairs are responsible for “building strong departments” and that includes the student experience. FTNTTF report that it is because of their “passion for teaching” and “commitment to students” that they remain in their profession even if there are some areas of support and inclusion lacking. Additionally, the primary work of FTNTTF is teaching, making this group of faculty the most in contact with the majority of students. Given this, further research on FTNTTF work and the impact on students is merited. Theoretical Approaches Social change leadership theory (SCLT) was useful in this study by serving as a framework by which chairs and others might employ more inclusive practices, collective decision-making, and support change efforts for FTNTTF. Furthermore, as purported by SCLT, this study found that a commitment to community is critical for FTNTTF and that chairs can play an important role in fostering caring communities. Likewise, this study discussed collective efforts and collaborative practices through the lens of SCLT. Chairs may employ these elements 168 of SCLT in efforts to increase their influence and build stronger departments, especially for marginalized groups such as FTNTTF. Elements of SCLT may also be employed in matters where a change agent is needed to advocate on the behalf of others. Further research on collaborative practices versus community-building (as they are not exclusively one and the same) could bring greater understanding to the role of the chair and how they may influence building more supportive and inclusive working conditions for FTNTTF. SCLT also proved useful in this study in demonstrating that in some cases, change efforts are led by those who may hold a formal leadership position. In other instances, change may be encouraged and efforts organized by those not in a formal leadership position, and that a collective effort is most effective when seeking change to the status quo. However, SCLT did not apply to other findings in this study such as challenges that often come with change. Specifically, chairs face challenges related to budget and limited resources. Summary of Future Research Future research could extend and provide additional insight into the findings of this study. The pathway and chair selection process could bring to light other faculty inequities and power imbalances that exist in higher education that impact the chair post. An exanimation of inclusive practices is needed across the board, including those that affect chairs and FTNTTF. Shared governance is central to the organizational structure of higher education and is designed to help ensure representative voices and collective decision-making is present. Faculty involvement is decreasing in some areas and increasing in others. Chairs, as faculty themselves, are also facing changes to their involvement in shared governance. Further study on shared governance and the effect on chairs’ influence is important. The well-being of faculty, including chairs, directly impacts students and student learning. Further research on these fronts is 169 necessary for the future of higher education. Lastly, understanding theoretical frameworks more thoroughly makes future research endeavors stronger and richer. Limitations While this study was conducted using sound and proven measures, some limitations should be noted. In one department, the only TTF who participated was the chair; all other participants in this unit were FTNTTF. Many participants in this study were identified by either the associate dean or one of the department chairs as potential participants for this study. While this networking approach greatly helped to move this study forward, the selection process could be viewed as selective. Also, staff were not included in this study, and they could provide a unique perspective to the role of chair and their work and influence with FTNTTF. Of great importance to note are the effects, known and unknown, of a global pandemic present at the time of this study. Due to Covid-19, everyone has been working under unprecedented stress, ever- changing conditions and emotions, and limited and uncertain resources. Higher education faculty, like other professionals, have faced new challenges with balancing life and work in these unprecedented times and extreme circumstances. Conclusion Higher education is changing. These changes call for a re-examination of long- standing traditions about how best to meet the needs of today’s students and tomorrow’s leaders. Who constitutes faculty has changed and the tenure-system appears to be waning, requiring an examination of long-standing traditions about faculty and workplace policies, practices, and cultures. This examination is especially important for FTNTTF who now encompass a majority of today’s faculty. 170 With change comes discomfort, uncertainty, and tensions. However, change is inevitable, and deep change to the status quo is complex, requires risk-taking, and takes time. Deep change efforts like those needed to address FTNTTF policies, practices, and cultures often require a change agent who champions the process for the benefit of others. Department chairs are best positioned to lead efforts towards change for FTNTTF because of their positional and relational influence. Department chairs can play a pivotal role in the work and well-being of FTNTTF. However, they often do not act alone but rather in collaboration with others. This study demonstrated that department chairs are essential in addressing the needed changes with FTNTTF policies, practices, and cultures. Department chairs may elect to lead efforts to revise policies and organizational structures in ways that support and include FTNTTF, starting with affording all regular faculty equal rights regardless of rank. FTNTTF, like their TTF colleagues, need support structures and practices that valorize their work through a commitment to collegiality, collaborative practices, and caring communities. Department chairs may elect to model and commit to creating more inclusive, welcoming, and friendly environments for FTNTTF. By doing so, morale could be boosted, faculty could be energized, and student learning could be enhanced. However, department chairs do not act alone and have limited power due to structures often beyond their control. Collective leadership efforts, like working across units and ranks, via task forces, and including unions, may be necessary strategies for bringing needed change to FTNTTF policies, practices, and cultures. Department chairs may choose to serve as champions and change agents that support and guide the work of FTNTTF. Institutions and organizations interested in supporting the work of all its faculty, employing more fair, open, and equitable policies and practices, need to find ways to work across differences and discomfort to 171 implement needed change. The role of the department chair is vitally important to the work and well-being of FTNTTF. 172 APPENDICES 173 APPENDIX A: Full-Time Non-Tenure-Track Faculty Comparisons Figure 1: Full-Time Non-Tenure-Track Faculty Comparisons Figure 1. This figure shows a comparison of the full-time non-tenure-track faculty types at the institution for this study in the form of a Venn diagram. The figure shows the similarities and differences between the two groups. 174 APPENDIX B: Demographics and Characteristics of the 16 Faculty Participants Table 1: Demographics and Characteristics of the 16 Faculty Participants 16 Faculty Participants Tenure-Track (8) Full-Time Non-Tenure-Track (8) Male Female Male Female 4 4 3 5 Dept 1: 3 TTF Dept 1: 2 FTNTT Dept 2: 3 TTF Dept 2: 3 FTNTT Dept 3: 1 TTF Dept 3: 3 FTNTT *College level: 1 TTF P1 (F) TTF; Professor P9 (F) FTNTT; Assist Professor, in process of designation/union P2 (F) TTF; Assoc P10 (F) FTNTT; Assoc Professor, designation/union Professor P11 (F) FTNTT; Senior Specialist, continuing/non-union P3 (M) TTF; Assoc P12 (F) FTNTT; Specialist/non-union Professor P13 (M) FTNTT; Specialist, continuing/non-union P4 (F); TTF; Professor P14 (F) FTNTT; Assist Professor, in process of designation; union P5 (F); TTF; Assoc P15 (M) FTNTT; Specialist, continuing/non-union Professor P16 (M) FTNTT; Specialist, continuing/non-union P6 (M) TTF; Assoc *Designation status has multi-year contract; more “job security” Professor ** Continuing status has multi-year contract; more “job security”; P7 (M) TTF; Assist referred to as “tenure-light” Professor P8 (M) TTF; Assist Professor 175 APPENDIX C: Consent Forms Department Chair Interview Consent Form Research Participant Information and Consent Form You are being asked to participate in a research project. Researchers are required to provide a consent form to inform you about the study, to convey that participation is voluntary, to explain risks and benefits of participation, and to empower you to make an informed decision. You should feel free to ask the researcher any questions you may have. Study Title: The Role of Department Chair: Full-Time Non-Tenure-Track Faculty Policies, Practices and Work Cultures. Researcher and Title: Shauna Williams, Ph.D. Candidate Department and Institution: Educational Administration-H.A.L.E. Program, Michigan State University Address and Contact Information: will3067@msu.edu 1. PURPOSE OF RESEARCH: You are being asked to participate in a research study as part of my doctoral course work at Michigan State University. You have been selected as a participant in this study because you serve as department chair and can provide valuable insights into how your role influences full-time non-tenure-track faculty (FTNTTF) policies, practices and work cultures in your department, college, and institution. From this study, the researcher hopes to learn how department chairs at a non-unionized institution perceive their role and ways by which they might influence others regarding FTNTTF work experiences (e.g., work cultures, organizational structures, decision-making processes, and professional development opportunities). The study includes a variety of participants: department chairs, tenure-track faculty, and full-time non-tenure-track faculty, from select disciplines. In the entire study, a total of 27 are being asked to participate. Your participation in this study will take about one hour. 2. WHAT YOU WILL DO: Your participation in this study will consist of a one-hour recorded interview. Because this research study is part of my dissertation, collected data could be published, presented, or circulated outside of the research project. That being said, your participation is voluntary, meaning that there is no legal or formal obligation to participate. Your name will not be used. Only the person conducting the interview will have access to your name, as masking techniques will be applied to protect your identity in the transcript and final study. Your consent allows the interview to be recorded and gives the researcher permission to store the audio recordings in their password-protected computer. Once the audio recording is transcribed, the researcher will work only with the transcribed record. 3. POTENTIAL BENEFITS: You will not directly benefit from your participation in this study. However, your participation in this study will contribute to the understanding of how the role of department chair influences full-time non-tenure-track faculty policies, practices and work 176 cultures. *No financial compensation, course credit, or other forms of compensation are being offered to the participant. 4. POTENTIAL RISKS: The potential risks of participating in this study are minimal. There are no foreseeable risks associated with participation in this study. 5. PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY: Information about you will be kept confidential to the maximum extent allowable by law. Only the researcher will have access to your identity and your name will not be used. While the results of this study may be presented publicly, the identities of all research participants and the institution will remain anonymous. Audio recordings are required in this project. Please mark “yes” or “no” below and initial: I agree to allow audiotaping/videotaping of the interview. Yes No Initials____________ 6. YOUR RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE, SAY NO, OR WITHDRAW: Participation in this research project is completely voluntary. You have the right to say no. You may change your mind at any time and withdraw. You may choose not to answer specific questions or to stop participating at any time. You will be told of any significant findings that develop during the course of the study that may influence your willingness to continue to participate in the research. 7. COSTS AND COMPENSATION FOR BEING IN THE STUDY: You will not receive money or any other form of compensation for participating in this study. 8. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS: - not applicable 9. THE RIGHT TO GET HELP IF INJURED: - no applicable 10. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: - non associated 11. CONTACT INFORMATION FOR QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS: If you have any questions about this study, such as scientific issues, how to do any part of it, or to report an injury, please contact the researcher: Shauna Williams will3067@msu.edu If you have any questions about your role and rights as a research participant, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Director of MSU’s Human Research Protection Programs, Kristen Burt: address: 4000 Collins Rd, Suite 136 Lansing, MI 48912 12. DOCUMENTATION OF INFORMED CONSENT: Your signature below means that you voluntarily agree to participate in this research study. ________________________________________ _____________________________ Signature Date 177 Tenure-Track Faculty Interview Consent Form Research Participant Information and Consent Form You are being asked to participate in a research project. Researchers are required to provide a consent form to inform you about the study, to convey that participation is voluntary, to explain risks and benefits of participation, and to empower you to make an informed decision. You should feel free to ask the researcher any questions you may have. Study Title: The Role of Department Chair: Full-Time Non-Tenure-Track Faculty Policies, Practices and Work Cultures. Researcher and Title: Shauna Williams, Ph.D. Candidate Department and Institution: Educational Administration-H.A.L.E. Program, Michigan State University Address and Contact Information: will3067@msu.edu 1. PURPOSE OF RESEARCH: You are being asked to participate in a research study as part of my doctoral course work at Michigan State University. You have been selected as a participant in this study because you are tenure-track faculty member and can provide valuable insights into how the role of department chair influences full-time non-tenure-track faculty (FTNTTF) policies, practices and work cultures in your department, college, and institution. From this study, the researcher hopes to learn how department chairs at a non-unionized institution perceive their role and ways by which they might influence others regarding FTNTTF work experiences (e.g., work cultures, organizational structures, decision-making processes, and professional development opportunities). The study includes a variety of participants: department chairs, tenure-track faculty, and full-time non-tenure-track faculty, from select disciplines. In the entire study, a total of 27 are being asked to participate. Your participation in this study will take about one hour. 2. WHAT YOU WILL DO: Your participation in this study will consist of a one-hour recorded interview. Because this research study is part of my dissertation, collected data could be published, presented, or circulated outside of the research project. That being said, your participation is voluntary, meaning that there is no legal or formal obligation to participate. Your name will not be used. Only the person conducting the interview will have access to your name, as masking techniques will be applied to protect your identity in the transcript and final study. Your consent allows the interview to be recorded and gives the researcher permission to store the audio recordings in their password-protected computer. Once the audio recording is transcribed, the researcher will work only with the transcribed record. 3. POTENTIAL BENEFITS: You will not directly benefit from your participation in this study. However, your participation in this study will contribute to the understanding of how the role of department chair influences full-time non-tenure-track faculty policies, practices and work cultures. *No financial compensation, course credit, or other forms of compensation are being offered to the participant. 4. POTENTIAL RISKS: The potential risks of participating in this study are minimal. There are no foreseeable risks associated with participation in this study. 178 5. PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY: Information about you will be kept confidential to the maximum extent allowable by law. Only the researcher will have access to your identity and your name will not be used. While the results of this study may be presented publicly, the identities of all research participants and the institution will remain anonymous. Audio recordings are required in this project. Please mark “yes” or “no” below and initial: I agree to allow audiotaping/videotaping of the interview. Yes No Initials____________ 6. YOUR RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE, SAY NO, OR WITHDRAW: Participation in this research project is completely voluntary. You have the right to say no. You may change your mind at any time and withdraw. You may choose not to answer specific questions or to stop participating at any time. You will be told of any significant findings that develop during the course of the study that may influence your willingness to continue to participate in the research. 7. COSTS AND COMPENSATION FOR BEING IN THE STUDY: You will not receive money or any other form of compensation for participating in this study. 8. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS: - not applicable 9. THE RIGHT TO GET HELP IF INJURED: - no applicable 10. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: - non associated 11. CONTACT INFORMATION FOR QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS: If you have any questions about this study, such as scientific issues, how to do any part of it, or to report an injury, please contact the researcher: Shauna Williams will3067@msu.edu If you have any questions about your role and rights as a research participant, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Director of MSU’s Human Research Protection Programs, Kristen Burt: address: 4000 Collins Rd, Suite 136 Lansing, MI 48912 12.DOCUMENTATION OF INFORMED CONSENT: Your signature below means that you voluntarily agree to participate in this research study. ________________________________________ _____________________________ Signature Date 179 Full-Time Non-Tenure-Track Faculty Interview Consent Form Research Participant Information and Consent Form You are being asked to participate in a research project. Researchers are required to provide a consent form to inform you about the study, to convey that participation is voluntary, to explain risks and benefits of participation, and to empower you to make an informed decision. You should feel free to ask the researcher any questions you may have. Study Title: The Role of Department Chair: Full-Time Non-Tenure-Track Faculty Policies, Practices and Work Cultures. Researcher and Title: Shauna Williams, Ph.D. Candidate Department and Institution: Educational Administration-H.A.L.E. Program, Michigan State University Address and Contact Information: will3067@msu.edu 1. PURPOSE OF RESEARCH: You are being asked to participate in a research study as part of my doctoral course work at Michigan State University. You have been selected as a participant in this study because you are a full-time non-tenure-track faculty member and can provide valuable insights into how the role of department chair influences full-time non-tenure-track faculty (FTNTTF) policies, practices and work cultures in your department, college, and institution. From this study, the researcher hopes to learn how department chairs at a non- unionized institution perceive their role and ways by which they might influence others regarding FTNTTF work experiences (e.g., work cultures, organizational structures, decision- making processes, and professional development opportunities). The study includes a variety of participants: department chairs, tenure-track faculty, and full-time non-tenure-track faculty, from select disciplines. In the entire study, a total of 27 are being asked to participate. Your participation in this study will take about one hour. 2. WHAT YOU WILL DO: Your participation in this study will consist of a one-hour recorded interview. Because this research study is part of my dissertation, collected data could be published, presented, or circulated outside of the research project. That being said, your participation is voluntary, meaning that there is no legal or formal obligation to participate. Your name will not be used. Only the person conducting the interview will have access to your name, as masking techniques will be applied to protect your identity in the transcript and final study. Your consent allows the interview to be recorded and gives the researcher permission to store the audio recordings in their password-protected computer. Once the audio recording is transcribed, the researcher will work only with the transcribed record. 3. POTENTIAL BENEFITS: You will not directly benefit from your participation in this study. However, your participation in this study will contribute to the understanding of how the role department chairs influence full-time non-tenure-track faculty policies, practices and work cultures. *No financial compensation, course credit, or other forms of compensation are being offered to the participant. 180 4. POTENTIAL RISKS: The potential risks of participating in this study are minimal. There are no foreseeable risks associated with participation in this study. 5. PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY: Information about you will be kept confidential to the maximum extent allowable by law. Only the researcher will have access to your identity and your name will not be used. While the results of this study may be presented publicly, the identities of all research participants and the institution will remain anonymous. Audio recordings are required in this project. Please mark “yes” or “no” below and initial: I agree to allow audiotaping/videotaping of the interview. Yes No Initials____________ 6. YOUR RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE, SAY NO, OR WITHDRAW: Participation in this research project is completely voluntary. You have the right to say no. You may change your mind at any time and withdraw. You may choose not to answer specific questions or to stop participating at any time. You will be told of any significant findings that develop during the course of the study that may influence your willingness to continue to participate in the research. 7. COSTS AND COMPENSATION FOR BEING IN THE STUDY: You will not receive money or any other form of compensation for participating in this study. 8. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS: - not applicable 9. THE RIGHT TO GET HELP IF INJURED: - no applicable 10. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: - non associated 11. CONTACT INFORMATION FOR QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS: If you have any questions about this study, such as scientific issues, how to do any part of it, or to report an injury, please contact the researcher: Shauna Williams will3067@msu.edu If you have any questions about your role and rights as a research participant, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Director of MSU’s Human Research Protection Programs, Kristen Burt: address: 4000 Collins Rd, Suite 136 Lansing, MI 48912 12. DOCUMENTATION OF INFORMED CONSENT: Your signature below means that you voluntarily agree to participate in this research study. ________________________________________ _____________________________ Signature Date 181 APPENDIX D: Demographic Questionnaire 1.What is your faculty rank? a. tenure-track b. non-tenure-track 2. How long have you been faculty in the department? a. 2-5 years b. 6-10 years c. 11 or more years 3.How long have you been employed in higher education? a. 2-5 years b. 6-10 years c. 11 or more years 182 APPENDIX E: Interview Questions Department Chair Questions Research Question(s) Questions Extending Questions What role does the department chair play regarding FTNTTF policies, practices and work cultures? 1. What role does the The Department: a. What aspects department chair play in of the FTNTTF the processes or Tell me about your department. culture is unique to approaches employed at your department? the department level in What has been your experience b. What aspects developing a collegial with working with the faculty as of the FTNTTF culture regarding department chair? culture do you FTNTTF? maintain? What needs or goals, in your role c. What aspects as department chair, do you see are of the FTNTTF most critical for your department culture would you and why? like to change? d. How have In your role, how do you make current department progress towards meeting those FTNTTF culture needs or goals? issues impacted your role as department chair? e. How would you approach making changes in this area? 2. What role does the Structure: a. What are the department chair play in the existing challenges processes or approaches Tell me about the organizational you encounter employed at the department structure of the department. regarding enacting level in enacting shared- shared-governance governance practices and How are these structures managed? practices and policies policies (e.g., departmental, that involve college, institutional levels) What have been your experiences, FTNTTF? regarding FTNTTF? as department chair, with working b. In what ways with faculty in matters of are these challenges department, college and/or unique to your university organizational department? Your structures? 183 college? Your What needs or goals in the area of institution? structure do you see most pressing c. Where do you and why? see shared- governance In your role, how might you make regarding FTNTTF progress towards meeting those enacted? Please needs or goals? explain. d. How would you approach making changes in this area? 3. What role does the Processes: a. In one word, department chair play in the what role do you processes or approaches Tell me how you go about making play in assessment of employed at the department decisions in the department. FTNTTF policies level regarding the development and practices? and implementation of More specifically, describe how b. What are assessment of policies and decisions around faculty policies some challenges that practices (e.g., departmental, are made (e.g., department you have college, institutional levels) documents, guidelines). experienced related related to FTNTTF? to the assessment of What has been your experience these? How do you with working on faculty policies? handle those challenges? What needs or goals in the area of c. What faculty policies do you believe are assessment structures central at this time and why? or systems related to FTNTTF policies In your role, how might you make and practices do you progress towards meeting those believe need needs or goals? attention, and why? d. How would you approach making changes in this area 4. What role does the Faculty supports: a. What role do department chair play in the you play in faculty processes or approaches Tell me about professional receiving employed at the department development (PD) opportunity for professional level related to professional faculty at your institution. development development for FTNTTF? opportunities (e.g., How are PD opportunities for approval for funding, faculty decided? What is the time away, etc.? process? Who is eligible? Who is b. What is your the decision-making group? role in relation to others involved in professional 184 What has been your experience, as development department chair, with professional opportunities? development for faculty? c. What is going well/not well with What needs or goals in the area of FTNTTF faculty PD do you view as most professional pressing at this time and why? development endeavors in your In your role, how might progress department? In the be made towards addressing these college? At your needs and goals? institution? d. How would you approach making changes in this area? 5. Other: Tell me more about these areas, or a. How do you other topics and initiatives relating determine if you to faculty in your department. need to influence FTNTTF matters What has been your experience as beyond the department chair regarding department? _______? b. How do you determine your role What is most needed on this front to influence in these at this time and why? instances? c. How do you How does your role play into steps know if your towards addressing that need? influence does/does …………………………… not have the desired effect and what does Lastly, you graciously nominated that mean for you? (up to 3) tenure-track faculty to be d. What would interviewed. Thank you. Please you like to see describe why these faculty were different in this area selected as a good source for this as department chair? study. e. How important is the department chair responsibility to FTNTTF to you? Please explain. f. How would you approach making changes in this area? g. How have FTNTTF issues 185 impacted you personally? Tenure-Track Faculty Research Question(s) Questions Extending Questions What role does the department chair play regarding FTNTTF policies, practices and work cultures? 1. What role does the The Department: a. What aspects of the department chair play in FTNTTF culture is unique the processes or approaches What is it like to be faculty to your department? employed at the department in your department? b. What aspects of the level in developing a FTNTTF culture does the collegial culture regarding Tell me about our department chair maintain, FTNTTF? experience with working and how s/he does so? with the department chair. c. What aspects of the FTNTTF culture would the Tell me about your department chair (or experience with working faculty) like to change? with other faculty in the What role does the chair department. play in that process? d. How have current How would you describe department FTNTTF the day-to-day interactions culture issues impacted the among department role of your department members? chair (e.g., relationships within/outside of the What needs or goals do department)? you see are most critical e. How would you for your department at this like the department chair to time and why? approach making changes in this area? In your view, how does the department address these? What role does the department chair play in making progress towards meeting those needs or goals, if any? 2. What role does the Structure: a. What are the department chair play in the existing challenges your processes or approaches employed Tell me about your department chair at the department level in enacting experience as faculty with encounters regarding 186 shared-governance practices and department structures (e.g., enacting shared- policies (e.g., departmental, organization, committees, governance practices and college, institutional levels) task forces). policies that involve regarding FTNTTF? FTNTTF? What has been your b. In what ways are experience with working these challenges unique to with the others (e.g., your chair, department, department chair, faculty) college, institution? in these areas? c. Are there examples of your chair enacting What needs or goals in the shared-governance area of structure do you regarding FTNTTF? Please see most pressing, and explain. why? d. How would you like your department chair In your view, how does the to approach making department address these? changes in this area? What role does the department chair play in making progress towards meeting structure related needs or goals, if any? 3. What role does the Processes: a. What comes to department chair play in the mind when you think processes or approaches employed Tell me more about your about the role your at the department level regarding experience with the department chair plays the development and decision-making process in in assessment of implementation of assessment of the department. For FTNTTF policies and policies and practices (e.g., example, how are practices? departmental, college, institutional decisions made and who b. Can you imagine levels) related to FTNTTF? are the decision makers? any challenges your What type of decisions are department chair might being made at the have experienced department level? related to assessment of these? How has s/he More specifically, describe handled those how decisions around challenges? faculty policies are made c. What assessment (e.g., department structures or systems documents, guidelines). related to FTNTTF policies and practices What has been your does your chair believe experience with working need attention, and on faculty policies? why? How is this evidenced by the chair? 187 What needs or goals in the d. How does s/he area of faculty policies do approach making you believe are central at changes in this area? this time and why? Describe how progress towards meeting those needs or goals might happen? What role does the department chair play in the process, if any? 4. What role does the Faculty supports: a. What role does the department chair play in the department chair play in processes or approaches employed Tell me about professional FTNTTF receiving at the department level related to development (PD) professional development professional development for opportunity for faculty at opportunities (e.g., FTNTTF? your institution. approval for funding, time away, etc.? How are PD opportunities b. What is their role in for faculty decided? What relation to others involved is the process? Who is in professional eligible? Who is the development decision-making group? opportunities? c. What is going What needs or goals in the well/not well with area of faculty PD do you FTNTTF professional view as most pressing at development endeavors in this time and why? your department? In the college? At your Describe how progress institution? towards addressing these d. And what is the needs and goals might relationship of the role of happen? your department chair to these endeavors? What role does the e. How would you department chair play in like your department chair the process, if any? to approach making changes in this area? 5. Other: Tell me more about these a. How do you areas, or other topics or determine if the department initiatives related to chair needs to exert their faculty life in your influence regarding department. FTNTTF matters beyond the department? 188 What has been your b. How does your experience regarding department chair exert their _______? influence in these instances? What is most needed on c. How do you know this front at this time and if their influence has/does why? not have the desired effect and what might that mean? How does the role of d. What would you department chair play into like your department chair steps towards addressing to do differently in this that need? area? e. In your view, how important does your department chair view their responsibility is to FTNTTF? Please explain. f. How would you like to see your department chair approach making changes in this area? Full-Time Non-Tenure-Track Faculty Research Question(s) Questions Extending Questions What role does the department chair play regarding FTNTTF policies, practices and work cultures? 1. What role does the The Department: a. What aspects of the department chair play in FTNTTF culture is unique the processes or approaches What is it like to be faculty to your department? employed at the department in your department? b. What aspects of the level in developing a FTNTTF culture does the collegial culture regarding Tell me about our department chair maintain, FTNTTF? experience with working and how s/he does so? with the department chair. c. What aspects of the FTNTTF culture would the Tell me about your department chair (or experience with working faculty) like to change? with other faculty in the What role does the chair department. play in that process? 189 d. How have current How would you describe department FTNTTF the day-to-day interactions culture issues impacted the among department role of your department members? chair (e.g., relationships within/outside of the What needs or goals do department)? you see are most critical e. How would you for your department at this like the department chair to and why? approach making changes in this area? In your view, how does the department address these? What role does the department chair play in making progress towards meeting those needs or goals, if any? 2. What role does the Structure: a. What are the department chair play in the existing challenges your processes or approaches employed Tell me about your department chair at the department level in enacting experience as faculty with encounters regarding shared-governance practices and department structures (e.g., enacting shared- policies (e.g., departmental, organization, committees, governance practices and college, institutional levels) task forces). policies that involve regarding FTNTTF? FTNTTF? What has been your b. In what ways are experience with working these challenges unique to with the others (e.g., your chair, department, department chair, faculty) college, institution? in these areas? c. Are there examples of your chair enacting What needs or goals in the shared-governance area of structure do you regarding FTNTTF? Please see most pressing, and explain. why? d. How would you like your department chair In your view, how does the to approach making department address these? changes in this area? What role does the department chair play in making progress towards meeting structure related needs or goals, if any? 190 3. What role does the Processes: a. What comes to department chair play in the mind when you think about processes or approaches employed Tell me more about your the role your department at the department level regarding experience with the chair plays in assessment the development and decision-making process in of FTNTTF policies and implementation of assessment of the department. For practices? policies and practices (e.g., example, how are b. Can you imagine departmental, college, institutional decisions made and who any challenges your levels) related to FTNTTF? are the decision makers? department chair might What type of decisions are have experienced related to being made at the assessment of these? How department level? has s/he handled those challenges? More specifically, describe c. What assessment how decisions around structures or systems faculty policies are made related to FTNTTF policies (e.g., department and practices does your documents, guidelines). chair believe need attention, and why? How is What has been your this evidenced by the experience with working chair? on faculty policies? d. How does s/he approach making changes What needs or goals in the in this area? area of faculty policies do you believe are central at this time and why? Describe how progress towards meeting those needs or goals might happen? What role does the department chair play in the process, if any? 4. What role does the Faculty supports: a. What role does the department chair play in the department chair play in processes or approaches employed Tell me about professional FTNTTF receiving at the department level related to development (PD) professional development professional development for opportunity for faculty at opportunities (e.g., FTNTTF? your institution. approval for funding, time away, etc.? How are PD opportunities b. What is their role in for faculty decided? What relation to others involved is the process? Who is in professional 191 eligible? Who is the development decision-making group? opportunities? c. What is going What needs or goals in the well/not well with area of faculty PD do you FTNTTF professional view as most pressing at development endeavors in this time and why? your department? In the college? At your Describe how progress institution? towards addressing these d. And what is the needs and goals might relationship of the role of happen? your department chair to these endeavors? What role does the e. How would you department chair play in like your department chair the process, if any? to approach making changes in this area? 5. Other: Tell me more about these a. How do you areas, or other topics or determine if the department initiatives related to chair needs to exert their faculty life in your influence regarding department. FTNTTF matters beyond the department? What has been your b. How does your experience regarding department chair exert their _______? influence in these instances? What is most needed on c. How do you know this front at this time and if their influence has/does why? not have the desired effect and what might that mean? How does the role of d. What would you department chair play into like your department chair steps towards addressing to do differently in this that need, if at all? area? e. In your view, how important does your department chair view their responsibility is to FTNTTF? Please explain. f. How would you like to see your department 192 chair approach making changes in this area? 193 APPENDIX F: Definitions Change – change to the status quo; alterations to current FTNTTF policies, practices and cultures (e.g., working conditions, environments, and experiences). Clarity – being coherent, accurate, articulate, explicit, and often paired with transparency. Community – an environment or atmosphere where relationships, interactions, and engagements occur collaboratively between persons, units, institutions, and other agencies. Community is formed through engaging in overlapping or shared work, attitudes, interest, and goals. Transparency – having qualities such as honesty and openness. 194 REFERENCES 195 REFERENCES Alleman, N., Allen, C., & Haviland, D. (2017). Collegiality and the Collegium in an Era of Faculty Differentiation. ASHE Higher Education Report, 43(4), 7-122. Alleman, N., & Haviland, F. (2017). “I expect to be engaged as an equal”: Collegiality expectations of full-time, non-tenure-track faculty members. Higher Education, 74(3), 527-542. Allen, H. L. (2000). Tenure: Why faculty, and the nation, need it. Thought & Action, 16(1), 95-110. American Association of Colleges and Universities. (2015, September). AAC&U Supporting Contingent Faculty for Better Learning Environments at Virginia Tech Retrieved from: https://www.aacu.org/campus-model/supporting-contingent-faculty- better-learning-environments-virginia-tech American Association of University Professors. (2014). AAUP Contingent appointments and the academic profession. Retrieved from: https://www.aaup.org/report/contingent-appointments-and-academic-profession American Association of University Professors. (n.d.). AAUP Background facts on contingent faculty positions. Retrieved from: https://www.aaup.org/issues/contingency/background-facts American Association of University Professors. (11, October, 2018). Retrieved from: https://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/10112018%20Data%20Snapshot%20Tenure.pdf Amey, M. (2006). Leadership in Higher Education. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 38(6), 55-58. Anfara, V. A., Brown, K. M., & Mangione, T. L. (2002). Qualitative analysis on stage: Making the research process more public. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 28–38. Appadurai, A. (2009). Higher Education's Coming Leadership Crisis. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 55(31), A60. Austin, A. E. (1996). Institutional and departmental cultures: The relationship between teaching and research. New Directions for Institutional Research, 1996(90), 57-66. Austin, A. E., & Gamson, Z. F. (1983). Academic workplace: New demands, heightened tensions. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education. Baldwin, R. G., & Chronister, J. L. (2001). Teaching without tenure. Baltimore: Johns 196 Hopkins University Press. Baldwin, R. G., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2011). Contingent faculty as teachers: What we know; what we need to know. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(11), 1485-1509. Barwick, J. (2007). Following the leader and leading the followers. Leadership in place: How academic professionals can find their leadership voice, 149-168. Berdrow, I. (2010). King among kings: Understanding the role and responsibilities of the department chair in higher education. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 38(4), 499-514. Bilimoria, D., Perry, S. R., Liang, X., Stoller, E. P., Higgins, P., & Taylor, C. (2006). How do female and male faculty members construct job satisfaction? The roles of perceived institutional leadership and mentoring and their mediating processes. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(3), 355-365. Bland, C., Bruce A. Center, Finstad, D., Risbey, K., & Staples, J. (2006). The Impact of Appointment Type on the Productivity and Commitment of Full-Time Faculty in Research and Doctoral Institutions. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(1), 89-123. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/stable/3838733 Brand, M. (2002). Full-time, non-tenure-track appointments: A case study. Peer Review, 5(1), 18-21. Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2000). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. National Association of Secondary School Principals. NASSP Bulletin, 84(612), 88. Bowden, R., & Gonzalez, L. (2012). The rise of contingent faculty: Its impact on the professoriate and higher education. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 4(1), 5-22. Bowen, W. G., & Tobin, E. M. (2017). Locus of authority: The evolution of faculty roles in the governance of higher education (Vol. 83). Princeton University Press. Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton University Press, 3175 Princeton Pike, Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 Bryman, A. (2007). Effective leadership in higher education: A literature review. Studies in higher education, 32(6), 693-710. Cambridge. (n.d.). Commitment. In Cambridge.org dictionary. Retrieved from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/commitment Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (2005). Diagnosing and Changing Organizational 197 Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework. John Wiley & Sons. Carroll, J. B., & Wolverton, M. (2004). Who Becomes a Chair?. New Directions for Higher Education, 126, 3-10. Chapman, S.A., and L. M. Randall. “Adaptive leadership and transformative learning: A case of leading by part-time faculty. “Leadership in place: Howe academic professionals can find their leadership voice (2007): 51-75. Clark, B. (1963). Faculty organization and authority. In T. Lansford (Ed.), The study of academic administration. Boulder, CO: WICHE. Craig, R. (2015). College disrupted: The great unbundling of higher education. St. Martin's Press. Crawford, C. B., Brungardt, C. L., & Maughan, M. (2000). Understanding leadership: Theories & concepts. Rocky Mountain Press. Creswell, J. (1990). The Academic Chairperson's Handbook. University of Nebraska Press. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Creswell, J. W., Wheeler, D. W., Seagren, A. T., Egly, N. J., & Beyer, K. D. (1990). The Academic Chairperson’s Handbook. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Deetz, S. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization: Developments in communication and the politics of everyday life. SUNY press. Drake, A., Struve, L., Meghani, S. A., & Bukoski, B. (2019). Invisible labor, visible change: Non-tenure-track faculty agency in a research university. The Review of Higher Education, 42(4), 1635-1664. Ehrenberg, R. G., & Zhang, L. (2005). Do tenured and tenure-track faculty matter? Journal of Human Resources, 40(3), 647-659. Figlio, D. N., Schapiro, M. O., & Soter, K. B. (2015). Are tenure track professors better teachers?. Review of Economics and Statistics, 97(4), 715-724. Finkelstein, M. J. and J. H. Schuster. 2001. Assessing the silent revolution: How changing demographics are reshaping the academic profession. AAHE Bulletin, 54: 2, 3- 7. Flaherty, Colleen (2013, October 13). Humanities Jobs Decline. Retreived from: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/10/30/mla-sees-decline-job-listings-english- and-languages 198 Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Fullan, M. & Scott, G. (2009). Turnaround leadership for higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Gappa, J. (2000). The New Faculty Majority: Somewhat Satisfied but Not Eligible for Tenure. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2000(105), 77-86. Gappa, J. (2008). Today's Majority: Faculty Outside the Tenure System. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 40(4), 50-54. Gappa, J. M., & Austin, A. E. (2010). Rethinking academic traditions for twenty-first- century faculty. AAUP Journal of Academic Freedom, 1(1), 1-20. Gappa, J. M., Austin, A. E., & Trice, A. G. (2005). Rethinking academic work and workplaces. Change: The magazine of higher learning, 37(6), 32-39. Gappa, J. M., Austin, A. E., & Trice, A. G. (2007). Rethinking faculty work: Higher education's strategic imperative. San Francisco, CA, US: Jossey-Bass. Gappa, J. M., & Leslie, D. W. (1993). The invisible faculty: Improving the status of parttimers in higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Gappa, J.M., & Trice,A.G. (Winter 2009) Rethinking faculty work and workplaces for Women. On Campus with Women, 37(3). Retrieved from: http://www.aacu.org/ocww/ Gehrke, S. J., & Kezar, A. (2015). Supporting non-tenure-track faculty at 4-year colleges and universities: A national study of deans’ values and decisions. Educational Policy, 29(6), 926-960. Gehrke, S., & Kezar, A. (2015). Unbundling the faculty role in higher education: Utilizing historical, theoretical, and empirical frameworks to inform future research. In Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 93-150). Springer, Cham. Gmelch, W. H. (1991). Paying the Price for Academic Leadership: Department Chair Tradeoffs. Gmelch, W. H. (2002). Where Have All the Leaders Gone?. Gmelch, W. H. (2004). The department chair's balancing acts. W.H. Gmelch, & Schuh J. (Ed.), New Directions for Higher Education. (126), 69-84. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Publications. Gmelch, W. H., & Schuh, J. H. (Eds.). (2004). The life cycle of a department chair. Jossey- Bass. 199 Gonaim, F. (2016). A department chair: A life guard without a life jacket. Higher Education Policy, 29(2), 272-286. Gonzales, L. D., & Terosky, A. L. (2016). From the faculty perspective: Defining, learning, and maintaining legitimacy across academia. Teachers College Record, 118(7), 1-44. Griffith, J., & Henry, Ronald J. (2006). Transition from faculty to administrator and transition back to the faculty. New Directions for Higher Education, 2006(134), 67-77. Harris, J., Martin, B. N., & Agnew, W. (2004). The characteristics, behaviors, and training of effective educational/leadership chairs. The changing face (s) of educational leadership: UCEA at the crossroads, 270-287. Haviland, D., Alleman, N., & Cliburn Allen, C. (2017). ‘Separate but Not Quite Equal’: Collegiality Experiences of Full-Time Non-Tenure-Track Faculty Members. The Journal of Higher Education, 88(4), 505-528. Hickman, G. R. (2010). Organizational change practices. In G. R. Hickman (Ed.), Leading Organizations: Perspectives for a New Era. (2 Ed.). p. 510-524. Los Angeles: Sage nd Press. Hoeller, K. (2014). Equality for contingent faculty: Overcoming the two-tier system. Vanderbilt University Press. Hollenshead, C., Waltman, J., August, L., Miller, J., Smith, G., & Bell, A. (2007). Making the best of both worlds: Findings from a national institution-level survey on non- tenure-track faculty. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for the Education of Women. Jones, W. A. (2011). Faculty involvement in institutional governance: A literature review. Journal of the Professoriate, 6(1), 118-135. Kempner, Ken. (2003). The Search for Cultural Leaders. Review of Higher Education, 26(3), 363-85. Kezar, A. (1998). Trying transformations: Implementing team-oriented forms of leadership. New Directions for Institutional Research, no. 100. p. 57-72. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kezar, A. (2001). Understanding and Facilitating Organizational Change in the 21st Century: Recent Research and Conceptualizations: ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Volume 28, Number 4. John Wiley & Sons. Kezar, A. (2012a). Bottom-Up/Top-Down Leadership: Contradiction or Hidden Phenomenon. The Journal of Higher Education, 83(5), 725-760. 200 Kezar, A. (2012b). Embracing non-tenure track faculty: Changing campuses for the new faculty majority. Routledge. Kezar, A. (2013a). Departmental cultures and non-tenure-track faculty: Willingness, capacity, and opportunity to perform at four-year institutions. The Journal of Higher Education, 84(2), 153-188. Kezar, A. (2013b). Examining non-tenure track faculty perceptions of how departmental policies and practices shape their performance and ability to create student learning at four-year institutions. Research in Higher Education, 54(5), 571-598. Kezar, A. (2018a). A new vision for the professoriate. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 50(3-4), 84-87. Kezar, A. (2018b). How Colleges Change: Understanding, Leading, and Enacting Change. Routledge. Kezar, A., Bertram Gallant, T., & Lester, J. (2011). Everyday people making a difference on college campuses: The tempered grassroots leadership tactics of faculty and staff. Studies in Higher Education, 36(2), 129-151. Kezar, A., Carducci, R., & Contreras-Mcgavin, M. (2006). Rethinking the "L" Word in Higher Education. ASHE Higher Education Report, Volume 31, Number 6. ASHE Higher Education Report, 31(6), 1. Kezar, Adrianna, & Eckel, Peter D. (2004). Meeting today's governance challenges: A synthesis of the literature and examination of a future agenda for scholarship. Journal of Higher Education, 75(4), 371-399. Kezar, A., & Gehrke, S. (2013). Creating a high-quality place to teach, learn, and work. Peer Review, 15(3), 8. Kezar, A., & Gehrke, S. (2014a). Grassroots leadership: Responding to declining shared governance in the neoliberal world. In Survival of the Fittest (pp. 101-117). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. Kezar, A., & Gehrke, S. (2014b). Why Are We Hiring so Many Non-Tenure-Track Faculty?. Liberal Education, 100(1). Kezar, A., & Gehrke, S. (2016). Faculty composition in four-year institutions: The role of pressures, values, and organizational processes in academic decision-making. The Journal of Higher Education, 87(3), 390-419. Kezar, A., Gehrke, S., & Bernstein-Sierra, S. (2018). Communities of transformation: creating changes to deeply entrenched issues. The Journal of Higher Education, 89(6), 832-864. 201 Kezar, A., Gehrke, S., Maxey, D. (2014). Unbundling versus designing faculty roles. Washington, DC: American Council on Education Presidential Innovation Lab. Kezar, A., & Lester, J. (2009). Supporting Faculty Grassroots Leadership. Research in Higher Education, 50(7), 715-740. Kezar, A., Lester, J., Carducci, R., Gallant, T. B., & McGavin, M. C. (2007). Where Are the Faculty Leaders?: Strategies and Advice for Reversing Current Trends. Liberal Education, 93(4), 14-21. Kezar, A & Maxey, D. (2014). Understanding Key Stakeholder Belief Systems or Institutional Logics Related to Non-Tenure-Track Faculty and the Changing Professoriate. Teacher’s College Record 116(10). Kezar, A., & Maxey, D. (2015). Adapting by design: Creating faculty roles and defining Delphi faculty work to ensure an intentional future for colleges and universities. Los Angeles: The Project on the Changing Faculty and Student Success. Kezar, A., & Sam, C. (2010). Understanding the new majority of non-tenure-track faculty in higher education: Demographics, experiences, and plans of action. ASHE Higher Education Report, 36, 4. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Komives, S. R., & Wagner, W. (Eds.). (2016). Leadership for a Better World: Understanding the Social Change Model of Leadership Development. John Wiley & Sons. Lattuca, L. R., & Stark, J. S. (2009). Shaping the college curriculum: Academic plans in action (Second Edition). Boston: Alyn and Bacon. Lees, N. D., Malik, D. J., & Vemuri, G. (2009). The essentials of chairing academic departments. The Essentials for New, 8. Levin, J. S., & Shaker, G. G. (2011). The Hybrid and Dualistic Identity of Full-Time Non-Tenure-Track Faculty. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(11), 1461– 1484. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764211409382 Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Lucas, A. F. (1994). Strengthening Departmental Leadership: A Team-building Guide for Chairs in Colleges and Universities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lucas, A. (2000). Leading Academic Change: Essential Roles for Department Chairs. The Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series. Jossey-Bass. Macfarlane, B. (2011). The morphing of academic practice: Unbundling and the rise of the para‐academic. Higher Education Quarterly, 65(1), 59-73. 202 Maxey, D., & Kezar, A. (2015). Revealing opportunities and obstacles for changing non- tenure-track faculty practices: An examination of stakeholders' awareness of institutional contradictions. The Journal of Higher Education, 86(4), 564-594 Maxwell, D. (2003). The leadership vacuum. The Modern Language Journal, 87(4), 595- 597. Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage. Merriam-Webster. (n.d.) Commitment. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/commitment Merriam-Webster. (n.d.) Commitment. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/commuity Mircea Remus Sabau, & Danut Neacsu. (2012). LEADERSHIP AND CHANGE, A MUST FOR CRISIS PERIOD IN HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS. Challenges of the Knowledge Society, 2, 1823-1831. Morris, A., & Miller, M. (2008). Leadership Role of the Department Chair in Private Colleges. Online Submission. Morrison, J. D. (2008). Faculty governance and nontenure‐track appointments. New Directions for Higher Education, 2008(143), 21-27. “National Study of Postsecondary Faculty,” National Center for Educational Statistics, 2016, 2018-12-12. Obasi, C. (2014). Negotiating the insider/outsider continua: a Black female hearing perspective on research with Deaf women and Black women. Qualitative Research, 14(1), 61-78. O’Meara, K., Kaufman, R. R., & Kuntz, A. M. (2003). Faculty work in challenging times: Trends, consequences, and implications. LIBERAL EDUCATION-WASHINGTON DC- , 89(4), 16-23. O’Meara, K., Lounder, A., & Campbell, C. (2014). To heaven or hell: Sensemaking about why faculty leave. Journal of Higher Education, 85(5), 603-632. Ott, M., & Cisneros, J. (2015) Understanding the changing faculty workforce in higher education: A comparison of full-time non-tenure track and tenure line experiences. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(90). http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v23.1934 http://cord.asu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Ott-M.-Cisneros-J.-2015.-.pdf Pasque, P. A., & Carducci, R. (2015). Critical advocacy perspectives on organization in higher education. In Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 275- 203 333). Springer, Cham. Quinn, K. (2007). Exploring departmental leadership: How department chairs can be transformative leaders. InterActions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies, 3(1). Reevy, G. M., & Deason, G. (2014). Predictors of depression, stress, and anxiety among non-tenure track faculty. Frontiers in psychology, 5, 701. Rhoades, G., & Maitland, C. (2008). Bargaining for full-time, non-tenure track faculty: Best practices. The NEA 2008 almanac of higher education, 67-73. Roper, S. S., & Deal, T. (2010). Peak performance for deans and chairs: Reframing higher education’s middle. Washington, DC: American Council on Education, Rowman & Littlefield, Publishers Rosser, V. (2000). Midlevel Administrators: What We Know. New Directions for Higher Education, 2000(111), 5-13. Rosser, V. (2004a). A national study on midlevel leaders in higher education: The unsung professionals in the academy. Higher Education, 48(3), 317-337. Rosser, V. J. (2004b). Faculty members' intentions to leave: A national study on their worklife and satisfaction. Research in Higher Education, 45(3), 285-309. Rossman, G. R., & Rallis, S. F. (2017). An introduction to qualitative research: Learning in the field (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2 ed.). Thousand nd Oaks, CA: Sage. Schein, E. (2003). The Learning Leader as Culture Manager. In Business Leadership: A Jossey-Bass Reader. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. (excerpted from E. Schein (1992), Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.) Schuster, J. H., Finkelstein, M. J., & Finkelstein, M. J. (2006). The American faculty: The restructuring of academic work and careers. JHU Press. Seagren AT, Creswell JW, and Wheeler DW (1993) The Department Chair: New Roles, Responsibilities and Challenges. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. ERIC Report #:ED363164. Shapiro, P. "Too many leaders?... or do we use the term “leader” too freely." News & Tools Leadership 1, no. 2 (2005): 1-2. Stake, R.E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 204 Tucker, A. (1984). Chairing the academic department, 2nd ed. New York: American Council on Education. Tucker, A. (1992). Chairing the Academic Department: Leadership among Peers, 2nd ed. New York: American Council on Education/Oryx. Umbach, P. (2007). How effective are they? Exploring the impact of contingent faculty on undergraduate education. Review of Higher Education, 30(2), 91–123. U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Retrieved from: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_csc.asp Waltman, J., Bergom, I., Hollenshead, C., Miller, J., & August, L. (2012). Factors contributing to job satisfaction and dissatisfaction among non-tenure-track faculty. Journal of Higher Education, 83(3), 411-434. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2012.0014 Watt, W. M. (2007). Leadership is action: Learning to lead in place. In J. F. Wergin (Ed.), Leadership in Place: How Academic Professionals Can Find Their Leadership Voice. pp. 169-191. San Francisco: Anker Publishing Company, Inc. Watt, W. M. (2009). Facilitative social change leadership theory: 10 recommendations toward effective leadership. Volume 8, Number 2-Fall 2009, 50. Wergin, J. F. (2007). Leadership in place: How academic professionals can find their leadership voice (Vol. 93). Jossey-Bass. Wheeler, D. W. (2009). The chair as servant leader: A call to serve. Department Chair, 20(1), 21-23. Wolverton, M., Ackerman, R., & Holt, S. (2005). Preparing for leadership: What academic department chairs need to know. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 27(2), 227-238. Yin, R.K. (2012). Applications of case study research (3 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. rd 205