Skip to main content

Shared Governance among the new Majority: Non-Tenure Track Faculty Eligibility for Election to University Faculty Senates


Non-tenure track faculty members (NTTF) constitute what has been referred to by scholars as the new faculty majority. The growing numbers of NTTF have led to debates about the role they should play in shared governance. Currently, however, an overall lack of empirical knowledge exists regarding the status of their involvement in institutional governance. Using data from highest research activity doctoral universities, this study investigated current standards related to NTTF eligibility for election to institution-wide faculty senates. We also explored what these faculty governance standards and criteria reveal about the status and position of NTTF within the professoriate.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


  1. American Association of University Professors (2013). The inclusion in governance of faculty members holding contingent appointments. Washington, DC. Retrieved from

  2. Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (2016). Shared governance: Is ok good enough? Retrieved from

  3. Baldwin, R. G., & Chronister, J. L. (2001). Teaching without tenure: Policies and practices for a new era. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Berry, J. (2005). Reclaiming the ivory tower: Organizing adjuncts to change higher education. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Birnbaum, R. (1989). The latent organizational functions of the academic senate: Why senates do not work but will not go away. The Journal of Higher Education, 60, 423–443. doi:10.2307/1982064. Retrieved from

  6. Birnbaum, R. (1991). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bland, C. J., Center, B. A., Finstad, D. A., Risbey, K. R., & 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, 89–123. doi:10.1353/jhe.2006.0002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Center for the Education of Women (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. Retrieved from

  9. Cross, J. G., & Goldenberg, E. N. (2009). Off-track profs: Nontenured teachers in higher education. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Curtis, J. W., & Thornton, S. (2013). The annual report on the economic status of the profession, 2012–2013. Washington, DC: American Association of University Professors. Retrieved from

  11. Ehrenberg, R. G., & Zhang, L. (2005). Do tenured and tenure-track faculty matter? Journal of Human Resources 40, 647–659. doi:10.3368/jhr.XL.3.647

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Figlio, D. N., Schapiro, M. O., & Soter, K. B. (2015). Are tenure track professors better teachers? Review of Economics and Statistics, 97, 715–724. doi:10.1162/REST_a_00529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Flaherty, C. (2015, Febuary 17). More than adjuncts. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from

  14. Gappa, J. M., & Leslie, D. W. (1993). The invisible faculty: Improving the status of part-timers in higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hutchens, N. H. (2011). Using a legal lens to better understand and frame issues shaping the employment environment of non-tenure track faculty members. American Behavioral Scientist, 1443–1460. doi:10.1177/0002764211409192

  16. Jencks, C., & Riesman, D. (1968). The academic revolution. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kezar, A. (2013). Departmental cultures and non-tenure-track faculty: Willingness, capacity, and opportunity to perform at four-year institutions. The Journal of Higher Education, 84, 153–188. doi:10.1353/jhe.2013.0011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kezar, A. (Ed.). (2012). Embracing non-tenure track faculty: Changing campuses for the new faculty majority. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kezar, A., Lester, J., & Anderson, G. (2006). Challenging stereotypes that interfere with effective governance. Thought and Action, Fall, 2016, 121–134. Retrieved from

  20. Kezar, A., & Sam, C. (2010a). Beyond contracts: Non-tenure track faculty and campus governance. The NEA Almanac of Higher Education. Washington, DC: National Education Association.

  21. Kezar, A., & Sam, C. (2010b). Non-tenure-track faculty in higher education: Theories and tensions. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kezar, A., & Sam, C. (2010c). Understanding the new majority of non-tenure-track faculty in higher education: Demographics, experiences, and plans of action. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kezar, A., & Sam, C. (2014). Governance as a catalyst for policy change creating a contingent faculty friendly academy. Educational Policy, 28, 425–462. doi:10.1177/0895904812465112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kuntz, A. M. (2012). Reconsidering the workplace: Faculty perceptions of their work and working environments. Studies in Higher Education, 37, 769–782. doi:10.1080/03075079.2010.541556

  25. Morrison, J. D. (2008). Faculty governance and nontenure-track appointments. New Directions for Higher Education, 143, 21–27. doi:10.1002/he.309

  26. Powell, W., & DiMaggio, P. (Eds.). (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Reybold, L. E. (2003). Pathways to the professorate: The development of faculty identity in education. Innovative Higher Education, 235–252. doi:10.1023/A:1024024430041

  28. Rhoades, G., & Maitland, C. (2008). Bargaining for full-time, non-tenure track faculty: Best practices. Washington, DC: National Educaton Association.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Schuster, J. H., & Finkelstein, M. J. (2006). The American faculty: The restructuring of academic work and careers. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Task Force on Non-Tenure-Track Faculty (2013). Non-tenure-track faculty in U.S. Universities: AERA statement and background report. Washington, DC. Retrieved from

  31. Tierney, W. G., & Bensimon, E. M. (1996). Promotion and tenure: Community and socialization in academe. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Tierney, W. G., & Rhoads, R. A. (1994). Faculty socialization as cultural process: A mirror of institutional commitment. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Umbach, P. D. (2007). How effective are they? Exploring the impact of contingent faculty on undergraduate education. The Review of Higher Education, 30, 91–123. doi:10.1353/rhe.2006.0080

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Wilson, R. (2013, March 18). The new faculty minority. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Willis A. Jones.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jones, W.A., Hutchens, N.H., Hulbert, A. et al. Shared Governance among the new Majority: Non-Tenure Track Faculty Eligibility for Election to University Faculty Senates. Innov High Educ 42, 505–519 (2017).

Download citation


  • Shared governance
  • Non-tenure track faculty
  • Faculty senate