Edited by: Ann X. Huang, Duquesne University, USA
Reviewed by: Shevaun D. Neupert, North Carolina State University, USA; Xing Liu, Eastern Connecticut State University, USA
*Correspondence: Gretchen M. Reevy, Department of Psychology, California State University, East Bay, 25800 Carlos Bee Blvd., Hayward, CA 94542, USA e-mail:
This article was submitted to Educational Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Nationwide in the United States, 70% of faculty members in higher education are employed off the tenure-track. Nearly all of these non-tenure-track (NTT) appointments share a quality that may produce stress for those who hold them: contingency. Most NTT appointments are contingent on budget, enrollment, or both, and the majority of contingent faculty members are hired for one quarter or semester at a time. Significant research has investigated the effects of contingency on teaching, students, departments, colleges, and universities; however, little research has focused on the psychological experiences of NTT faculty. The current study examined perceptions of workplace stressors and harm, organizational commitment, common coping mechanisms, and depression, anxiety and stress among NTT faculty using a longitudinal design that spanned 2–4 months. Results indicate that NTT faculty perceive unique stressors at work that are related to their contingent positions. Specific demographic characteristics and coping strategies, inability to find a permanent faculty position, and commitment to one's organization predispose NTT faculty to perceive greater harm and more sources of stress in their workplaces. Demographic characteristics, lower income, inability to find a permanent faculty position, disengagement coping mechanisms (e.g., giving up, denial), and organizational commitment were associated with the potential for negative outcomes, particularly depression, anxiety, and stress. Our findings suggest possibilities for institutional intervention. Overall, we argue that universities would be well-served by attending to the needs of NTT faculty on campus in order to mitigate negative outcomes for institutions, students, and faculty.
Over the past four decades, colleges and universities in the US have seen an increase in the number of non-tenure-track (NTT) faculty. Nationwide, 70% of faculty members in higher education are employed off the tenure-track (Curtis and Thornton,
There are a variety of explanations for these trends in higher education. According to some, declines in federal and state education spending, competition from virtual and for-profit colleges, increases in tenured/tenure-track faculty salaries, and greater demand for services to accommodate a diverse student population have forced many institutions to freeze hiring for permanent positions and to hire temporary employees instead (Gappa and Leslie,
Many questions have been raised about the impact of NTT faculty on institutions, tenured/tenure-track faculty, and students, and research in the field of education has begun to address these questions. Although some research examines contingency from the perspective of NTT faculty—their motivations for choosing the work, perceptions of the academic environment, and factors that affect their job satisfaction and organizational commitment—less research has focused on the psychological well-being of NTT faculty. Given the financial pressures that academic institutions have faced since the economic recession of 2008, we believe it is particularly important to examine the psychological impact of the trend toward contingent faculty labor in order to anticipate and mitigate harm to NTT faculty, as well as to institutions and to students.
In an effort to fill this gap, we examine perceptions of workplace stressors and harm, organizational commitment and identification, common coping mechanisms, and the occurrence of depression, anxiety, and stress among NTT faculty using a longitudinal design that spanned 2–4 months. In this research we are examining both “stressors” which are events or conditions which are perceived as stressful, and “stress,” which is the psychological and physiological reaction to a stressor or stressors. We propose that NTT faculty from some demographic groups—specifically, those with lower household incomes and those who desire a tenure-track position—will be more likely to perceive sources of stress (stressors) in the workplace and to report harm to themselves and colleagues in the wake of the 2008 recession. We also expect that commitment to and identification with one's institution and reliance on maladaptive coping mechanisms will predispose NTT faculty to higher levels of depression, anxiety, and stress. Our findings indicate that NTT faculty's experiences of stressors and depression, anxiety, and stress do vary based on demographic characteristics, coping mechanisms, and organizational identification and commitment. More broadly, they suggest a need for further research to examine the broad psychological impact of labor practices in higher education.
The increase in contingent faculty positions has had an impact on universities and students. As noted above, research has begun to examine the effects of contingent faculty hiring on institutions of higher learning. Many see the increase in temporary faculty positions as a threat to academic freedom and tenure, which many professors and universities consider crucial for the development of new knowledge (Chait,
Research has also examined the impact of contingent faculty on time spent with students and on faculty activities which are likely to affect student learning. The results generally reveal that the activities of TT and full-time NTT faculty are likely to be more advantageous for student learning than are the activities of part-time NTT faculty. Part-time NTT faculty spend less time interacting with students (Baldwin and Chronister,
Previous research has also examined the effects of contingent faculty hiring on the experiences of faculty themselves. One question of interest is, why do faculty choose or accept temporary work? Like many of their TT counterparts, faculty employed off the tenure-track have a strong intrinsic motivation to teach (Dutton,
Despite the joys of teaching and generally high levels of satisfaction among NTT faculty, temporary academic work can be associated with hardship. As mentioned earlier, NTT faculty are paid less than TT faculty and often receive few or no health or retirement benefits (CAW,
Another question of interest is the impact of contingency on organizational commitment and identification among faculty. Organizational commitment is defined as an employee's level of dedication to a specific organization (Meyer and Allen,
Given the importance of retaining a dedicated and talented faculty, organizational commitment and identification should be of interest to academic institutions. Organizational commitment, in particular, offers rewards to employees in the form of intrinsic motivation and satisfaction (Mowday et al.,
Rather than accepting lower commitment of contingent employees as a given, research has aimed to identify antecedents of organizational commitment that can be strengthened to increase levels of dedication among employees. Predictors of organizational commitment identified in the research include recognition, support, compensation, and participation in shared governance (Wayne et al.,
Given that organizational commitment is a psychological state, it is more than a desirable end goal for faculty and institutions. Organizational commitment is also likely to shape employees' reactions to workplace situations. Although examinations of the moderating role of organizational commitment are not as common in the literature, Groff (
The many challenges of contingent work also raise the possibility that NTT faculty experience high levels of stress, anxiety, and depression. The conventional wisdom is that job insecurity that stems from temporary work status can contribute to a variety of health problems, and indeed, several studies conducted in non-academic workplace settings have found that temporary employees are more likely to have health problems (Benavides and Benach,
To our knowledge, depression and anxiety have not been studied in the temporary faculty population. Studies comparing the stress levels of part-time and full-time faculty find that part-time faculty experience less stress (Gappa and Leslie,
The coping mechanisms that NTT faculty use may also affect both their stress levels and other psychological outcomes, including anxiety and depression. The current study uses a widely used measure of coping, the COPE scale (Carver et al.,
Research on the impact of contingent faculty in higher education has tended to focus on the impact of contingency on universities and on students, with less attention paid to the experiences and well-being of faculty. As described above, previous literature leaves several unanswered questions about contingent faculty experiences of stress and the impact of contingency on longer-term health outcomes such as depression and anxiety. The psychological literature on stress and coping suggests new ways of understanding the experience of contingency, and points to questions that are important for the future of faculty well-being:
(1) What are the key workplace stressors for contingent faculty?
This is a particularly important question in the wake of the 2008 recession, which continues to impose a financial strain on many universities. NTT faculty may report that their primary stressors are those that are related to financial security (e.g., contingency, low pay, no health insurance). The distinct nature of faculty work and the high levels of job satisfaction among NTT faculty may further bolster the idea that when NTT faculty identify primary workplace stressors, the stressors would tend to be unrelated to their actual work tasks (e.g., lecturing, interacting with students), since the work itself is experienced as rewarding.
(2) How do NTT faculty cope with stress related to contingency? To what extent do they use adaptive or maladaptive coping strategies, and what are the broader health consequences of these strategies?
Previous research links temporary employment to negative health outcomes. Again, because this research is conducted in non-academic settings, it is unclear whether contingent employment in academia is a risk factor for health. The psychological literature on stress and coping indicates that not only stress level, but also the method for coping with stress can put employees at risk for negative health outcomes. In particular, disengagement coping mechanisms such as behavioral disengagement (giving up) and denial are likely to be linked to negative health outcomes such as anxiety and depression (Allman et al.,
(3) What are sources of individual variation in contingent faculty experiences of stress?
Previous research indicates that contingent faculty may experience the workplace differently based on demographic factors. Gender influences perceptions of stressors, in both work and non-work environments. Results of a large meta-analysis reveal that women report more stressors than men across many life domains (Davis et al.,
In addition, the psychological literature on stress and coping indicates systematic variation in how individuals cope with stress. In a meta-analysis on sex comparisons in coping, Tamres et al. (
The current study involves investigating perceived workplace stressors, perceived workplace harm, coping, organizational commitment and identification, and well-being outcomes related to these variables (depression, anxiety, and stress) among contingent faculty members. A first goal is to describe common stressors and coping mechanisms for contingent faculty. We will also examine the degree of organizational commitment among contingent faculty, and investigate whether commitment correlates with age and gender, as shown in earlier research. Next, we will predict perceptions of workplace stressors and harm, depression, anxiety, and stress from general demographic variables, situational variables (i.e., total family income and desire for permanent faculty work), and individual coping mechanisms, with the general expectation that variables at each of these psychological levels will partially explain the psychological experiences of NTT faculty. In predicting depression, anxiety, and stress, which were measured at time 2, we will utilize measures of harm, stressors, coping mechanisms, organizational commitment and organizational identification which were taken at time 1, in order to determine if these presumably stable personal qualities (i.e., coping mechanisms, identification, and commitment) and perceived situational factors (i.e., perceived stressors and harm), which may or may not be stable, precede the psychological reactions of depression, anxiety, and stress. Lastly, we will investigate the interaction between organizational commitment and stressors/harm as predictors of depression, anxiety, and stress. This last set of analyses will address the question: Does commitment buffer the effects of stressors and harm on depression, anxiety, and stress, as might be predicted from research on other types of workers, or will we find that among contingent faculty, organizational commitment fails to operate as a buffer? We predict the latter result, given that organizational commitment may operate as a protective factor only among those employees who feel job security in their positions.
The procedures of this study were approved by the Institutional Review Board of California State University, East Bay. We solicited participants for an online two-part study on experiences of contingent faculty between October 2011 and April 2012. Solicitations were sent to four listservs: adj-l (which focuses on adjunct faculty issues), the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, and the Society for the Teaching of Psychology. All lecturers at a medium-sized public university in the United States were invited to participate. Additionally, the New Faculty Majority, an advocacy organization for contingent faculty, posted the first solicitation on their website. Prospective participants were told that, for the purposes of this survey, contingent faculty members were defined as any instructional or research faculty who work off the tenure track at institutions of higher education, such as lecturers, adjunct faculty, post-docs, and graduate students.
The survey was through Google docs. Once at the Google docs website, participants gave their informed consent. They provided an email so that we may send them a reminder email about participating in Part 2, and were asked to create a unique ID number so that we could match Part 1 and Part 2 surveys. Next, participants completed a series of questionnaire measures in the following order: organizational commitment, organizational identification, perceptions of stressors, perceptions of harm, coping, and a demographic information form. Immediately prior to the questionnaire about perception of stressors, participants were asked an open-ended question: Which aspects of your job do you find most stressful? If possible, list and describe at least two aspects. Additionally, participants were invited to make comments about the survey or anything else. Lastly, participants were thanked, given contact information of the researchers, and were invited to include their name, email address, and phone number if they were interested in participating in an optional drawing for one of five $100 gift cards redeemable at Powells Books, an independent bookseller headquartered in Portland Oregon, which sells books both onsite and online.
Two to four months after participation in the Part 1 survey, between January and July of 2012, participants received an email inviting them to complete the Part 2 survey. Participants completed the following questionnaire measures: perceptions of stressors, perceptions of harm, coping, depression, anxiety, and stress, organizational commitment, and organizational identification. Next, the participants were thanked, provided with the researchers' contact information, and were invited to enter their name, email address, and phone number if they would like to participate in the drawing. Lastly, the participants were brought to a debriefing page that explained that the study involved examining relationships between stress and coping strategies and contingent faculty health outcomes and workplace commitment.
There were 199 participants (129 women, 67 men, and three who did not report a gender) in the Part 1 survey. Demographic characteristics which are expressed as percentages of the sample (e.g., racial/ethnic background, highest education level) are presented in Table
Asian/Asian American | 2.0 |
Black/African American | 3.5 |
Latino/Hispanic | 3.0 |
Native American | 0.5 |
White/Caucasian | 81.4 |
Multiracial | 3.0 |
Other | 1.0 |
Missing | 5.5 |
United States | 91.5 |
Other country | 6.0 |
Missing | 2.5 |
Doctorate | 40.7 |
Juris doctor | 1.0 |
ABD (all but dissertation) | 15.1 |
Master's degree | 38.7 |
Bachelor's degree | 3.5 |
Missing | 1.0 |
Art, film, theater, or music | 7.5 |
Anthropology | 3.5 |
Biology | 2.0 |
Business, economics, or management | 3.0 |
Education | 7.0 |
English, literature, creative writing, or language | 20.5 |
History | 6.5 |
Psychology, counseling, or social work | 18.5 |
Other | 27.5 |
Missing | 4.0 |
Married | 47.7 |
Unmarried and cohabiting | 8.0 |
Divorced | 11.1 |
Single, never married | 26.1 |
Separated | 1.0 |
Widowed | 4.0 |
Missing | 2.0 |
Yes | 48.2 |
No | 48.7 |
Missing | 3.0 |
Adjunct/contingent faculty or instructor | 84.9 |
Teaching assistant or graduate student instructor | 6.5 |
Research associate or post-doc | 4.0 |
Other | 2.0 |
Missing | 2.5 |
University that grants graduate degrees | 50.8 |
Four-year college | 16.6 |
Community college | 23.1 |
Missing | 9.5 |
No | 29.1 |
Health insurance only | 18.1 |
Retirement only | 8.0 |
Both health insurance and retirement | 38.2 |
Health, retirement, and other benefit | 2.0 |
Don't know or sometimes | 2.0 |
Missing | 2.0 |
Ninety participants (54 women, 35 men, and one who did not identify a gender) participated in both the Part 1 and Part 2 surveys. Demographic characteristics which are expressed as percentages of the sample (e.g., racial/ethnic background, highest education level) are presented in Table
Black/African American | 3.3 |
White/Caucasian | 85.6 |
Multiracial | 3.3 |
Other or missing | 7.7 |
United States | 94.4 |
Other country | 4.4 |
Missing | 1.1 |
Doctorate | 46.6 |
ABD (all but dissertation) | 18.9 |
Master's degree | 31.1 |
Bachelor's degree | 3.3 |
Art, film, theater or music | 6.6 |
Anthropology | 5.5 |
Biology | 3.3 |
Business, economics, or management | 4.4 |
Education | 9.9 |
English, literature, creative writing, or language | 14.4 |
History | 6.7 |
Nursing or health sciences | 3.3 |
Philosophy | 3.3 |
Psychology or counseling | 21.0 |
Other | 20.9 |
Married | 52.2 |
Unmarried and cohabiting | 5.6 |
Divorced | 13.3 |
Single, never married | 23.3 |
Separated | 1.1 |
Widowed | 3.3 |
Missing | 1.1 |
Yes | 47.8 |
No | 50.0 |
Missing | 2.2 |
Adjunct/contingent faculty or instructor | 86.7 |
Teaching assistant or graduate student instructor | 5.6 |
Research associate or post-doc | 4.4 |
Other | 3.3 |
University that grants graduate degrees | 56.7 |
Four-year college | 15.6 |
Community college | 20.0 |
Missing | 7.8 |
No | 32.2 |
Health insurance only | 18.9 |
Retirement only | 6.6 |
Both health insurance and retirement | 40.0 |
Health, retirement, and other benefit | 2.2 |
The Affective Commitment Scale (ACS; Allen and Meyer,
The Organizational Identification Questionnaire (OIQ; Mael and Ashforth,
The researchers developed a questionnaire to measure stressors, called “Contingent Faculty Stressors Questionnaire (CFSQ),” which was used in both the Part 1 and Part 2 surveys. The CFSQ consists of five items which ask the following: whether overall stress level has changed since the economic downturn of 2008, whether job security has decreased, whether income has decreased, whether workload has increased, and whether medical benefits were lost at some point since 2008. The Part 2 survey asked respondents to rate which of the same aspects of their work have changed since their completed the Part 1 survey and to rate the degree of change. Higher scores indicated more stress (e.g., overall stress level changing for the worse, job security decreasing, etc.). All variables ran from 0 to 1 such that total scores on the stressor scale ranged from 0 to 5. Alphas in the current study were 0.67 for the time 1 survey, 0.67 for the time 2 survey, and 0.70 for the combined data set. A factor analysis, using a Maximum Likelihood Analysis with direct oblimin rotation revealed that all stressor items loaded on a single factor.
The researchers developed a questionnaire to measure perceived harm observed in the workplace, called “Contingent Faculty Harm Scale (CFHS),” which was used in both the Part 1 and Part 2 surveys. The CFHS consists of four items which ask whether the participant has observed the following: harm occurring to colleagues, for instance, loss of job or loss of income; harm occurring to students, for instance, increased tuition or decreased access to classes; people at work treating one another more poorly than they used to; and personally having less freedom to speak his/her mind in the classroom and/or with colleagues and administrators. The Part 2 survey asked respondents to rate which of the same aspects of their work have changed since their completed the Part 1 survey and to rate the degree of change. Each of the four items is rated on a four-point scale where 0 = not at all, 1 = somewhat, 2 = moderately, and 3 = dramatically. Scores on the Harm questionnaire range from 0 to 12. Alphas in the current study were 0.69 for the time 1 survey, 0.74 for the time 2 survey, and 0.72 for the combined data set. A factor analysis using a Maximum Likelihood Analysis with direct oblimin rotation revealed that all harm items loaded on a single factor.
The COPE scale (Carver et al.,
The Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (DASS; Lovibond and Lovibond,
Desire for a permanent (tenure-track) position was measured with the following item: “Do you accept temporary work due to difficulty finding a permanent position?” This item was rated on a scale from 1 (no, not at all) to 5 (yes, to a large degree). This item was created as part of a five-item survey assessing reasons why faculty choose temporary work and was not originally written to specifically assess whether temporary faculty desire permanent positions; this explains why the item appears to be an indirect assessment of desire for a permanent position. As we began data analysis we determined that this item could be used to assess desire for a permanent position. The other four items of the survey were not utilized in the current study.
In the Part 1 survey, participants were asked to answer the following open-ended question: Which aspects of your job do you find most stressful? If possible, list and describe at least two aspects. To capture the content of these responses, one author and a graduate student created a coding taxonomy to classify participant responses into various categories. The coding taxonomy was created based on an initial reading of approximately 20% of the participant responses. The final coding taxonomy comprises 13 distinct categories: contingency/precariousness; lack of respect; not allowed to participate in service/governance and/or department politics; grading; workload; lack of secretarial/colleague/university support (including physical work space); lack of recognition/invisibility; low pay/pay inequity; no benefits (health, etc.); difficult/demanding students; students academically unprepared/disengaged; pressure to write, publish, or conduct research; and pressure to produce high students outcomes/perform at high standards. An “uncodeable/junk” category allowed us to document content of the responses that was not relevant to teaching or university work. An “other” category allowed us to document any additional content related to teaching and university work that was not included in the coding taxonomy categories.
A graduate student coder, blind to study hypotheses, divided each of the participant responses into phrases, clauses, and sentences that expressed a distinct thought or idea; these constituted the text units for coding. Next, she coded each text unit for the presence of the themes captured by our coding taxonomy. The specific instructions given to the graduate student coder were: “Look at the full sentence. If everything in the sentence is junk, code as junk. If parts are not junk, code each distinct idea separately, and do
Measures created from these codes reflect the proportion of the participants who mentioned a given theme in their response.
Quantitative data analysis involved the following: We explored relationships between all study variables through Pearson correlations. Also, we conducted five standard multiple regressions, predicting the following variables: perceived harm, perceived stressors, depression, anxiety, and stress. Additionally, we conducted six multiple regressions to examine whether organizational commitment interacts with (a) perceived workplace harm and (b) perceived workplace stress in the prediction of depression, anxiety, and stress.
All quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS version 21. To correct for potential type I error due to the large number of analyses, alpha levels were set at 0.01.
Means and standard deviations for organizational commitment, organizational identification, perceived stressors, perceived harm, and COPE scale variables for the Part 1 data set are presented in Table
Commitment | 31.63 | 10.03 | 10–53 |
Identification | 22.89 | 7.70 | 6–41 |
Perceived stressors | 2.42 | 1.23 | 0.6–5 |
Perceived harm | 5.34 | 2.96 | 0–12 |
Growth | 11.12 | 2.73 | 4–16 |
Mental disengagement | 8.78 | 2.68 | 4–16 |
Venting | 9.60 | 3.03 | 4–16 |
Instrumental support | 10.96 | 3.06 | 4–16 |
Active coping | 11.95 | 2.86 | 4–16 |
Denial | 4.78 | 1.46 | 4–11 |
Religious coping | 6.49 | 3.81 | 4–16 |
Humor | 9.38 | 3.43 | 4–16 |
Behavioral disengagement | 6.18 | 2.32 | 4–15 |
Restraint | 10.07 | 2.72 | 4–16 |
Emotional support | 11.12 | 3.47 | 4–16 |
Substance use | 5.42 | 2.73 | 4–16 |
Acceptance | 10.73 | 2.78 | 4–16 |
Suppression | 9.35 | 2.47 | 4–16 |
Planning | 12.83 | 2.77 | 4–16 |
Commitment | 31.01 | 9.68 | 13–53 |
Identification | 22.22 | 7.58 | 9–41 |
Perceived stressors | 2.31 | 1.21 | 0.6–5 |
Perceived harm | 5.24 | 3.13 | 0–12 |
Growth | 10.90 | 2.68 | 6–16 |
Mental disengagement | 8.43 | 2.68 | 4–16 |
Venting | 9.70 | 3.05 | 4–16 |
Instrumental support | 10.86 | 3.02 | 4–16 |
Active coping | 11.92 | 2.67 | 5–16 |
Denial | 4.70 | 1.43 | 4–11 |
Religious coping | 6.13 | 3.59 | 4–16 |
Humor | 9.43 | 3.42 | 4–16 |
Behavioral disengagement | 6.00 | 2.25 | 4–15 |
Restraint | 9.79 | 2.85 | 4–16 |
Emotional support | 11.24 | 3.34 | 4–16 |
Substance use | 5.17 | 2.37 | 4–16 |
Acceptance | 10.76 | 2.70 | 4–16 |
Suppression | 9.47 | 2.46 | 4–16 |
Planning | 12.70 | 2.67 | 6–16 |
Depression | 7.52 | 9.75 | 0–41 |
Anxiety | 4.15 | 7.10 | 0–38 |
Stress | 10.06 | 9.97 | 0–38 |
The correlation matrix for age, sex, family income, participants' desire for a tenure-track position, commitment, identification, perceived stressors, perceived harm, and COPE variables for the Part 1 data set is presented in Table
1. Age | 1.0 | |||||||||||||||||||||
2. Sex | −0.3 | 1.0 | ||||||||||||||||||||
3. Income | 0.27 |
−0.08 | 1.0 | |||||||||||||||||||
4. Perm position | −0.02 | 0.02 | −0.18 | 1.0 | ||||||||||||||||||
5. Identification | 0.01 | 0.09 | −0.15 | 0.21 |
1.0 | |||||||||||||||||
6. Commitment | 0.07 | 0.04 | −0.09 | 0.33 |
0.65 |
1.0 | ||||||||||||||||
7. Harm | 0.23 |
0.10 | −0.09 | 0.34 |
0.17* | 0.35 |
1.0 | |||||||||||||||
8. Stressors | 0.00 | 0.23 |
−0.16 | 0.38 |
0.21 |
0.37 |
0.52 |
1.0 | ||||||||||||||
9. Growth | −0.04 | 0.15 | −0.14 | −0.03 | −0.15 | −0.19 |
0.04 | 0.02 | 1.0 | |||||||||||||
10. Ment disengage | −0.22 |
0.10 | −0.26 |
0.17 | 0.11 | 0.20 |
0.16 | 0.16 | 0.08 | 1.0 | ||||||||||||
11. Venting | −0.01 | 0.14 | −0.14 | 0.21 |
0.10 | 0.14 | 0.21 |
0.06 | 0.16 | 0.39 |
1.0 | |||||||||||
12. Instru support | −0.05 | 0.17 | −0.17 | 0.06 | −0.15 | −0.12 | 0.14 | 0.00 | 0.48 |
0.16 | 0.47 |
1.0 | ||||||||||
13. Active coping | 0.07 | 0.12 | −0.03 | 0.12 | −0.15 | −0.18* | 0.13 | 0.04 | 0.52 |
−0.06 | 0.29 |
0.58 |
1.0 | |||||||||
14. Denial | 0.03 | 0.08 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.11 | 0.21 |
0.19 |
0.00 | 0.28 |
0.27 |
0.05 | 0.02 | 1.0 | ||||||||
15. Relig coping | −0.04 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.01 | −0.12 | −0.05 | 0.13 | 0.22 |
0.23 |
0.09 | 0.21 |
0.13 | 0.15* | 0.15* | 1.0 | |||||||
16. Humor | −0.04 | −0.07 | −0.13 | 0.10 | 0.08 | 0.02 | 0.15 | 0.08 | 0.20 |
0.26 |
0.11 | 0.18 | 0.13 | 0.11 | −0.08 | 1.0 | ||||||
17. Beh disengage | 0.02 | 0.03 | −0.11 | 0.16 | 0.29 |
0.38 |
0.26 |
0.19 |
−0.33 |
0.39 |
0.12 | −0.13 | −0.36 |
0.34 |
−0.13 | 0.03 | 1.0 | |||||
18. Restraint coping | 0.15 | 0.12 | −0.12 | 0.09 | 0.11 | 0.09 | 0.14 | 0.12 | 0.24 |
0.13 | 0.02 | 0.18 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.19 |
0.20 |
0.28 |
1.0 | ||||
19. Emot support | −0.04 | 0.30 |
−0.07 | 0.04 | 0.02 | −0.05 | 0.13 | −0.05 | 0.38 |
0.21 |
0.62 |
0.70 |
0.35 |
0.06 | 0.12 | 0.17 | −0.12 | 0.08 | 1.0 | |||
20. Substance use | −0.26 |
−0.04 | −0.12 | −0.01 | −0.04 | −0.09 | 0.06 | −0.04 | 0.01 | 0.38 |
0.15 | 0.15 | −0.06 | 0.17 | −0.14 | 0.16 | 0.20 |
−0.09 | 0.14 | 1.0 | ||
21. Acceptance | −0.13 | 0.04 | −0.18 |
0.09 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.06 | 0.28 |
0.16 | −0.02 | 0.15 | 0.13 | −0.05 | −0.02 | 0.30 |
0.03 | 0.34 |
0.11 | 0.03 | 1.0 | |
22. Suppression | 0.17 | 0.15 | 0.02 | 0.10 | −0.14 | −0.06 | 0.17 | 0.17 | 0.38 |
0.11 | 0.39 |
0.44 |
0.61 |
0.16 | 0.18 | 0.07 | −0.08 | 0.24 |
0.30 |
−0.02 | 0.06 | 1.0 |
23. Planning | 0.11 | 0.22 |
−0.01 | 0.09 | 0.14 | −0.18 | 0.15 | 0.11 | 0.54 |
−0.04 | 0.17 | 0.50 |
0.78 |
0.01 | 0.13 | 0.11 | −0.30 |
0.24 |
0.34 |
−0.02 | 0.12 | 0.55 |
The correlations between DASS variables measured in the Part 2 survey and age, sex, family income, participants' desire for a tenure-track position, commitment, identification, perceived stressors, perceived harm, and COPE variables measured in the combined data set are presented in Table
Age | −0.18 | −0.11 | −0.18 |
Sex | −0.09 | −0.08 | −0.17 |
Income | −0.38 |
−0.29 |
−0.30 |
Permanent position | 0.34 |
0.28 | 0.39 |
Commitment | 0.32 |
0.32 |
0.32 |
Identification | 0.21 | 0.35 |
0.20 |
Perceived harm | 0.38 |
0.39 |
0.39 |
Perceived stressors | 0.34 |
0.28 |
0.30 |
Growth | −0.16 | 0.03 | −0.02 |
Mental disengagement | 0.32 |
0.20 | 0.26 |
Venting | 0.28 |
0.22 | 0.39 |
Instrumental support | 0.01 | 0.12 | 0.10 |
Active coping | −0.12 | −0.03 | 0.02 |
Denial | 0.11 | 0.15 | 0.21 |
Religious coping | −0.12 | −0.02 | 0.07 |
Humor | 0.07 | 0.27 | 0.18 |
Behavioral disengagement | 0.41 |
0.23 | 0.32 |
Restraint coping | 0.03 | 0.16 | 0.03 |
Emotional support | −0.01 | 0.13 | 0.09 |
Substance use | 0.39 |
0.44 |
0.31 |
Acceptance | 0.00 | −0.14 | −0.04 |
Suppression | 0.15 | 0.11 | 0.20 |
Planning | −0.23 | −0.11 | −0.17 |
To examine the nature of stressors among contingent faculty in our sample, we looked first to the open-ended questions (qualitative data) in the Part 1 Survey, which asked participants to describe the most stressful aspects of their job. The responses mentioned by 10% or more of the sample were workload (31.9% of the sample), contingency/precariousness of status (31.4%), lack of support (including physical space; 30.4%), low pay or pay inequity (26.5%), not being allowed to participate in service/governance/department politics (18.6%), lack of recognition/invisibility (15.7%), and no benefits (health, etc.; 11.3%).
Next, we examined predictors of perceptions of harm and perceptions of workplace stressors. Perceptions of harm in the work environment correlated significantly and positively with age (
Next, we conducted two multiple regression analyses to determine which variables best predict perceived stressors and perceived harm. Each regression equation included the following variables as predictors: all demographic variables, identification, commitment, either perceived harm or perceived stressors (the variable which was not the dependent variable for the particular equation), and coping mechanisms for which the Pearson correlations with the dependent variable were significant. In the regression model predicting perceived workplace harm, age (β = 0.228,
Age | 0.23 |
0.05 | 0.02 | [0.02, 0.08] |
Sex | 0.04 | 0.24 | 0.45 | [−0.66, 1.13] |
Income | −0.06 | −0.05 | 0.06 | [−0.18, 0.07] |
Desire perm position | 0.13 | 0.26 | 0.15 | [−0.04, 0.56] |
Identification | −0.14 | −0.05 | 0.03 | [−0.12, 0.02] |
Commitment | 0.15 | 0.05 | 0.04 | [−0.01, 0.10] |
Perceived stressors | 0.34 |
0.79 | 0.20 | [0.40, 1.18] |
Behavioral disengagement | 0.10 | 0.12 | 0.10 | [−0.08, 0.31] |
Denial | 0.10 | 0.20 | 0.16 | [−0.12, 0.51] |
Venting | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.07 | [−0.05, 0.24] |
Age | −0.07 | −0.01 | 0.01 | [−0.02, 0.01] |
Sex | 0.19 |
0.50 | 0.18 | [0.14, 0.85] |
Income | −0.02 | −0.01 | 0.03 | [−0.06, 0.05] |
Desire perm position | 0.22 |
0.19 | 0.06 | [0.06, 0.31] |
Identification | −0.06 | −0.01 | 0.02 | [−0.04, 0.02] |
Commitment | 0.17 | 0.02 | 0.01 | [−0.00, 0.05] |
Perceived harm | 0.26 |
0.11 | 0.03 | [0.04, 0.18] |
Behavioral disengagement | 0.06 | 0.03 | 0.04 | [−0.05, 0.11] |
Denial | −0.00 | −0.00 | 0.06 | [−0.13, 0.12] |
Religious coping | 0.25 |
0.08 | 0.02 | [0.03, 0.13] |
Mean scores on each of the COPE variables, as presented in Table
In the current sample, sex correlated with two coping mechanisms. Specifically, women reported significantly more use of seeking emotional support (
Scores on the DASS variables in the current sample all fall within “normal” ranges for each of the three variables, as reported by Lovibond and Lovibond (
Results in Table
Regressions were conducted to determine which variables best predict depression, anxiety, and stress. Each regression equation included the following variables as predictors: all demographic variables, identification, commitment, harm, stress, and coping mechanisms for which Pearson correlations with the predicted variable were significant. In the regression model predicting depression, substance use was significant [β = 0.446,
Age | −0.12 | −0.08 | 07 | [−0.23, 0.07] |
Sex | −0.28 | −5.43 | 2.19 | [−9.83, −1.04] |
Income | −0.07 | −0.18 | 0.32 | [−0.82, 0.45] |
Desire perm position | 0.13 | 0.80 | 0.76 | [−0.72, 2.31] |
Identification | 0.09 | 0.11 | 0.17 | [−0.22, 0.44] |
Commitment | 0.23 | 0.25 | 0.19 | [−0.13, 0.64] |
Perceived harm | −0.02 | −0.07 | 0.49 | [−1.04, 0.90] |
Perceived stress | 0.02 | 0.14 | 1.10 | [−2.08, 2.36] |
Behavioral disengagement | 0.18 | 0.76 | 0.51 | [−0.27, 1.78] |
Mental disengagement | −0.02 | −0.08 | 0.47 | [−1.02, 0.86] |
Venting | 0.06 | 0.20 | 0.36 | [−0.52, 0.93] |
Substance use | 0.45 |
1.79 | 0.47 | [0.85, 2.73] |
Age | −0.13 | −0.07 | 0.06 | [−0.18, 0.04] |
Sex | −0.30 |
−4.53 | 1.60 | [−7.74, −1.32] |
Income | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.23 | [−0.44, 0.49] |
Desire perm position | 0.05 | 0.23 | 0.55 | [−0.88, 1.33] |
Identification | 0.28 | 0.27 | 0.12 | [0.03, 0.51] |
Commitment | 0.16 | 0.13 | 0.12 | [−0.11, 0.37] |
Perceived harm | 0.16 | 0.38 | 0.37 | [−0.36, 1.12] |
Perceived stress | 0.06 | 0.36 | 0.82 | [−1.28, 2.00] |
Substance use | 0.37 |
1.18 | 0.36 | [0.46, 1.90] |
Age | −0.30 |
−0.21 | 0.78 | [−0.37, −0.05] |
Sex | −0.41 |
−8.36 | 2.29 | [−12.95, −3.77] |
Income | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.32 | [−0.61, 0.68] |
Desire perm position | 0.08 | 0.50 | 0.79 | [−1.08, 2.07] |
Identification | 0.16 | 0.21 | 0.17 | [−0.13, 0.55] |
Commitment | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.19 | [−0.36, 0.40] |
Perceived harm | 0.30 | 0.96 | 0.51 | [−0.06, 1.97] |
Perceived stress | 0.08 | 0.61 | 1.16 | [−1.72, 2.94] |
Behavioral disengagement | −0.00 | −0.01 | 0.52 | [−1.05, 1.04] |
Venting | 0.29 |
0.98 | 0.36 | [0.26, 1.70] |
Substance use | 0.14 | 0.58 | 0.36 | [−0.41, 1.56] |
The mean score for organizational commitment in the current study is comparable to results reported by Fuller et al. (
Six regressions were conducted to examine whether organizational commitment interacted with (a) perceived workplace harm and (b) perceived workplace stress in the prediction of depression, anxiety, and stress. None of the six regressions produced a significant interaction effect. Therefore, the six regressions failed to support the notion that organizational commitment buffered the effect of either perceived harm or perceived stress in the workplace on depression, anxiety, or stress.
Research on the impact of contingent faculty in higher education has tended to focus on the impact of contingency on universities and on students, with less attention paid to the experiences and psychological well-being of contingent faculty themselves. In particular, previous research has not identified common workplace stressors for contingent faculty nor has it addressed the impact of contingency on longer-term health outcomes such as depression and anxiety in the context of academic work. To address the latter, this study investigated predictors of perceptions of workplace stressors and harm and depression, anxiety, and stress among faculty who work off the tenure track. Specifically, we examined the role that demographic factors, situational variables (e.g., total family income), organizational commitment and identification, and individual coping mechanisms may play in shaping the psychological experiences of contingent faculty.
A primary purpose of this study was to examine workplace stressors among NTT faculty. Research conducted in non-academic workplace settings finds that temporary work status is associated with stress, such that temporary workers report more stress than permanent employees (Benavides et al.,
Much of our quantitative data corroborated the above results from our open-ended survey question. Two situational factors—lower family income and inability to find permanent work—emerged as risk factors across several different areas of our results. NTT faculty who would prefer a permanent position were more likely to perceive stressors in the workplace, and NTT faculty who would prefer a permanent position and those with lower family incomes were more likely to experience depression, anxiety, and stress. Together, these findings suggest that faculty who are financially insecure, and the estimated 50% of NTT faculty who desire full-time work may be particularly at risk for negative health outcomes. A desire for a permanent job may be an additional indicator of low or insufficient income—indeed, the two were correlated in our sample (
We also examined how NTT faculty's psychological attachment to their university, in the form of organizational identification and commitment, may impact their stress-related perceptions and experiences. We found that organizational commitment and organizational identification are associated with a tendency to see greater harm and to experience more stressors in the workplace. In particular, we found that organizational identification was weakly associated with perceptions of stressors and harm, whereas organizational commitment was moderately correlated with perceptions of stressors and harm. Identification represents a “first level” of commitment to a university that may or may not develop into a deeper dedication, in the form of organizational commitment. These findings suggest that the more connected NTT faculty are to an institution, the more likely they are to perceive stressors and harm. A psychological attachment to a university may make NTT faculty more attentive and sensitive to potentially harmful events occurring on campus.
Our results also indicated that organizational identification and commitment are associated with the extent to which faculty experience depression, anxiety, and stress. Faculty who were higher in organizational identification and commitment tended to report higher levels of anxiety. Additionally, faculty who were higher in organizational commitment (but not identification) tended to report higher levels of depression and stress. These findings suggest that a psychological attachment to an organizational may be a risk factor for temporary employees. The results of this study also suggest that, rather than acting as a buffer against stress as in previous research with other groups of employees (e.g., Meyer and Allen,
In general, NTT faculty in our sample used engagement and disengagement coping mechanisms at rates similar to those reported in a large undergraduate sample (Carver et al.,
With the expectation that individuals will experience and cope with stressors and stress in different ways, we were also interested in examining sources of variation in NTT faculty's experiences of stressors and stress. Consistent with previous research on contingent faculty experiences, our results indicated that demographic factors—age and sex—are associated with NTT faculty experiences of stressors and harm and may predispose one to depression, anxiety, and stress. In particular, older faculty were more likely to perceive harm in the workplace, and also reported lower levels of stress than their younger counterparts. Older faculty in our sample also tended to use less maladaptive coping methods than younger faculty. These findings are consistent with previous research on coping, which finds that older adults may use more efficient coping mechanisms and are better at regulating negative emotions, resulting in lower stress levels (Aldwin,
Consistent with previous studies, we found that among contingent faculty, women reported more social support seeking, and were more likely to perceive stressors at work. However, in the current study, sex was not correlated with depression, anxiety, or stress when Pearson correlations were calculated. In regressions involving anxiety and stress, which utilized a subset of the sample upon which Pearson correlations were calculated (due to missing data), men reported higher anxiety and stress than women. The findings regarding depression and anxiety are inconsistent with previous research utilizing the DASS and with knowledge about gender differences in clinical diagnosis. Specifically, in a large non-clinical sample of adults in a previous study, women scored significantly higher than men on both the Depression and the Anxiety scales of the DASS (Crawford and Henry,
Women and men in the current sample did not differ in regard to stress as measured by the Stress scale of the DASS, which is a measure of stress reactions. These findings are consistent with the results of Crawford and Henry's (
Our research results show that contingent faculty who have lower family incomes, who have been unable to find a permanent position, who are most committed to their institution, and who use dysfunctional coping mechanisms are most likely to perceive higher levels of workplace stressors and harm and to experience higher levels of depression, anxiety, and stress. What can be done to help these faculty to achieve higher levels of well-being? The interventions that are most likely to be successful are those that occur at the institutional level, given that the institution controls access to resources which satisfy human needs at the most basic survival levels (e.g., income for all basic needs, job security to satisfy safety and security needs) and at higher levels of need (e.g., participation in governance to partially satisfy need for respect from TT peers). In our results, the relationship between a worker's commitment to their institution and their psychological well-being is the obverse of this relationship in most other samples of employees; committed employees, in other samples, typically experience fewer negative emotional states than those who are less committed. An employer or institution which fails to reward committed employees, and which instead behaves in ways that could be perceived by the employees as punishment (e.g., through classifying an employee as “temporary” for many years or decades, through failing to recognize the employee's contribution, through placing a low ceiling on pay) is doing a disservice not only to the employees but also to the institution itself. In the case of universities, harm to the faculty is likely to indirectly cause harm to the students and therefore to the mission of the institution. The reward for committed employees could, and should, include recognition, support, compensation, and participation in shared governance, which are factors that have been found to be associated with greater organizational commitment in employees in other samples (Wayne et al.,
Although interventions at the level of the institution are important, faculty may also be able to act individually by modifying their responses to workplace stressors. Two dysfunctional coping mechanisms (substance use and venting) contributed to one or more of the negative emotion outcomes variables (depression, anxiety, stress) independently of all other variables included in the regressions. Those NTT faculty who utilize dysfunctional coping mechanisms at a relatively high rate could commit to learning more functional coping mechanisms such as planning, active coping, and seeking instrumental (tangible) social support from others. Universities could offer coping workshops for employees. However, we caution that such training may prove more difficult than it may sound. It is possible that, among the NTT faculty in our sample, contingent work conditions may have led to or enhanced the development of the dysfunctional coping mechanisms. Possibly, for many or most of the individuals who are already suffering from depression, anxiety, or stress, changing oneself would do little to improve their well-being; a change in their circumstances may be required. Our uncertainty regarding the meaning of this finding reflects the primary limitation of our study, which is that it is correlational in nature and we cannot determine the causal relationships between many of our variables. Related to this, although we showed through our longitudinal design that a variety of variables (e.g., perception of workplaces stressors and harm, coping mechanisms) predicted depression, anxiety, and stress 2–4 months later, results which are consistent with the interpretation that workplace stressors, harm, and coping mechanisms partially cause levels of depression, anxiety, and stress, a stronger methodology is still needed to rule out alternative explanations of these correlational findings.
Future research should investigate the reliability of our findings that the most committed contingent faculty are also the ones whose well-being most suffers. We could extend this research by investigating the nature and deeper meaning of organizational commitment that occurs among some contingent faculty. Given that these faculty typically receive low pay and have little job security, and many have spent years in graduate school earning PhDs or other higher degrees, what types of sacrifices have they made in non-work areas of their lives? Do they have children, life partners, deep friendships? If their lives have involved sacrifice in these areas, what types of feelings do they have about having made these sacrifices? Is the amount of sacrifice in one's life outside of work associated with greater commitment to one's institution?
The study of psychological well-being among contingent faculty is uncharted territory. We have investigated relationships between several psychological variables, seeking to predict depression, anxiety, and stress in a group of contingent faculty. Hundreds of thousands of individuals in the United States work as contingent faculty, with millions of contingent faculty workers in the world (Curtis,
The present study examined experiences of stress and coping among NTT faculty. Due to a variety of trends in higher education, NTT faculty are a growing population whose contingent academic appointments are likely to produce unique stressors and possibly negative health effects. We found that NTT faculty perceive stressors at work that are related to their contingent positions. Demographic and situational factors, dysfunctional coping mechanisms, and organizational commitment and identification were associated with more negative psychological experiences. Our findings suggest possibilities for institutional intervention. Overall, we argue that universities would be well-served by attending to the needs of NTT faculty on campus in order to mitigate negative outcomes for institutions, students, and faculty. In tandem with improving the working conditions of NTT faculty, we support investigating the position that the AAUP (
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
We kindly thank the New Faculty Majority (NFM) Foundation for posting our study solicitation to their website and for general support and advice they have provided. In particular we wish to thank Esther Merves, Director of Research of NFM Foundation. Thank you to California State University student, Clarice Aceberos for creating the online survey, and to University of Wisconsin-La Crosse student, Jayme Henry for coding our open-ended survey questions and for assistance in preparing the manuscript. Thanks also to John Curtis of the American Association of University Professors for providing a reference. This research was supported in part by a single course release assigned time grant awarded to Gretchen Reevy by the California State University, East Bay Committee on Research and by a Small Grant from the College of Liberal Studies at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse.