Are Full-Time Non-Tenure-Track Faculty Philanthropically Motivated?

• In Event: Acknowledging Philanthropy in Faculty Work: A New Approach to Understanding the Professoriate

Abstract

The academic workforce's conversion to a majority nontenure-track has generated concerns about the academic freedom, faculty productivity, instructional quality and student success, and faculty institutional commitment and influence (Bland, Center, Finstad, Risbey, & Staples, 2006; Cross & Goldenberg, 2009; Ehrenberg & Zhang, 2005; Finkin, 1996; Jaeger & Eagan, 2010; McPherson & Shapiro, 1999; Umbach, 2007). Why do nontenure-faculty persist in the face of virulent critique as well as poor compensation, low status in policy and practice, limited opportunity, and job insecurity?

This session addresses this question through a study of 18 FTNT teaching faculty in English and from 3 large public institutions who participated in 80-180 minutes interviews. A phenomenological analysis (Kvale, 1996; van Manen, 1990), was conducted following Carspecken (1996), Creswell (1988, 2003), and Moustakas (1994) and including code development, reduction, and clustering to generate textural descriptions. The frame was rational utilitarianism theory (Becker, 1976) and its outgrowth, the identification model of philanthropic motivation (Schervish, 2003) encouraging consideration of the self in philanthropic explanation and defying the necessity of selflessness in altruistic behavior.

The faculty were motivated to continue--and to excel--by a love of teaching and dedication to student success tied to a concomitant belief in serving society, in alignment with philanthropic behavior as an opportunity for individuals to act to improve society for the good of all, themselves included, through activities with an accompanying personal intrinsic benefit. “We help people,” explained one participant; identity claims were characterized by reflections on helping, giving, and contributing to individuals, institutions, and society. The majority of participants pinpointed meeting student needs as critically important, as or more relevant than their personal concerns. Said one experienced professor,"Well, what motivates me? The fact that I’m doing something, contributing to people’s well being, that motivates me...it’s an intrinsic kind of motivation." In appointments with few extrinsic rewards, motivation came from within. Teaching as an avocation, rather than mere employment, led the participants to self-identify as “caring people” who found fulfillment as explained here: "...people who teach at the [FTNT] level, they’re not trying to climb the ladder...They’re looking for an environment in which they can feel useful and content with what they do and feel like they’re making a difference." The participants believed their work with students to be for the benefit of society and their communities, preparing students to go "beyond the university," and they were grateful to be able to make this meaningful contribution while doing work they loved.

This examination responds to calls for alternate approaches to studying nontenure faculty (Baldwin & Chronister, 2001; Kezar & Sam, 2010; Schuster & Finkelstein, 2006). In it, the FTNT faculty worked for the greater good and were philanthropically motivated, suggesting that workforce changes do not necessarily signal the demise of faculty commitment--and excellence--and that some concerns about nontenure faculty may be unfounded. Future research exploring connections between the identity and motivations of nontenure faculty and philanthropic principals is warranted.

Author

• Genevieve Shaker, Indiana University - Purdue University at Indianapolis