Adjunct Faculty Perceptions of Leadership and Cultures of Engagement, Inclusion, Collaboration, and Value Through a Social Capital Theory Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the time of this study, there were more adjunct or part-time teaching positions at colleges and universities than full-time or tenure track positions. It is predicted this trend will persist because it is fiscally beneficial to educational institutions; adjuncts will work for a quarter of the salary and with fewer benefits, no real job security, unpredictable teaching schedules, and no commensurate voice in faculty decisions. This case study expanded the understanding of the reasons behind contingent faculty's perceptions of satisfaction and their decisions to remain in instructional positions even with the positions' blatant inequities. According to Bourdieu's social capital theory, a society's status-related inequities can be transcended, so membership can collectively gain and retain enduring qualities for interpersonal capital. The purpose of this qualitative study was to understand adjunct faculty's current perspectives on whether they feel valued and supported by their departmental administrators because of institutional systems in place. Adjunct faculty were asked about their perceptions of leadership and cultures of engagement, inclusion, collaboration, and value. Similarities and differences amongst adjuncts' perceptions were examined. Findings indicated that adjuncts perceive they are valued by various means including student engagement and enlightenment, opportunities to educate future generations, the work itself, additional take-home pay, and the depth of interaction and satisfaction with their department chairs. Consequently, it is the internal drive, the understanding and acceptance of the position's defined parameters, and the intrinsic motivators that promote adjuncts' self-satisfaction and continued commitment to participate as contingent faculty.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".