A Comparative Assessment of Non-tenure Stream Faculty Members’ Perceived Organizational Support and Organizational Commitment at Two Canadian Universities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored the employee-organizational relationship of non-tenure stream faculty teaching at two research-intensive Canadian universities through an examination of faculty members’ perceived organizational support, organizational commitment, and organizational exchange relationship. Through a survey of 146 non-tenure stream faculty teaching at two institutions in the 2013-14 academic year, the study examined their composition, characteristics, career aspirations, and views about working as a non-tenure stream teacher at their institution, from a comparative perspective. Five research questions were addressed. The closed- and open-ended survey question results were analyzed and presented for both the pooled and individual institutional samples. The measures of perceived organizational support, organizational commitment, and organizational exchange relationship were analyzed and scale reliability results are reported. Key findings include: one third of study participants are teaching in a non-stream position because they could not find a tenure stream position; three quarters of participants had other employment (whether it was full-time or part-time, at or external to the university); participants feel emotionally attached to their institution (affective commitment) and believe that their institution supports them and values their work (perceived organizational support); part-time non-tenure stream faculty were less ‘emotionally attached’ than were full-time non-tenure stream faculty; full-time non-tenure stream faculty associate greater ‘costs’ to leaving their institution of employment (continuance commitment) than part-time non-tenure stream faculty; over four fifths of participants were satisfied working at their institution and would recommend the institution as a good place to work; participants identified job security and stability, a greater respect, sense of belonging, recognition, being undervalued, and better compensation and career related issues, as concerns; working with students, learners, colleagues, and teaching were what participants liked best about working at their university.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".