The Behavior Analyst

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 219–238 | Cite as

Collegiate contingencies



We discuss contemporary trends and developments that affect colleges and universities and describe several central contingencies that have given rise to, maintain, and operate in response to these trends and developments. We identify the differential impacts of these contingencies on faculty, students, and administrators in various types of higher education institutions. These contingencies are sources of conflict between and among these three groups within the academy that, we argue, cause significant instability in contemporary academe. We discuss prominent domains of this disequilibrium and propose several general interventions to address the sources of the instability.

Key words

higher education faculty teaching students tenure academic administrators 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alexander-Snow, M., & Johnson, B. J. (1999). Perspectives from faculty of color. In R. J. Menges and Associates (Eds.), Faculty in new jobs: A guide to settling in, becoming established, and building institutional support (pp. 88–117). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  2. Altbach, P. G. (1997). An international academic crisis? The American professoriate in comparative perspective. Daedalus, 126 (4), 315–338.Google Scholar
  3. Aronowitz, S. (1997). Academic unionism and the future of higher education. In C. Nelson (Ed.), Will teach for food: Academic labor in crisis (pp. 181–214). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  4. Arreola, R. A. (1995). Developing a comprehensive faculty evaluation system: A handbook for college faculty and administrators in designing and operating a comprehensive faculty evaluation system. Boston: Anker Publishing.Google Scholar
  5. Austin, A. E., & Rice, R. E. (1998). Making tenure viable. American Behavioral Scientist, 41, 736–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baez, B., & Centra, J. A. (1995). Tenure, promotion and reappointment: Legal and administrative implications. Washington, DC: George Washington University.Google Scholar
  7. Barzun, J. (1968). The American university. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  8. Bess, J. L. (1998). Contract systems, bureaucracies, and faculty motivation. Journal of Higher Education, 69, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Biemiller, L. (1998, October 9). University of Utah president issues a pointed warning about virtual universities. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A32.Google Scholar
  10. Blackburn, R. X, & Lawrence, J. H. (1995). Faculty at work: Motivation, expectation, satisfaction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bland, C. J., & Berquist, W. H. (1997). The vitality of senior faculty members: Snow on the roof, fire in the furnace. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Vol. 25, No. 7. Washington, DC: George Washington University.Google Scholar
  12. Blumenstyk, G. (1999, April 9). The marketing intensifies in distance learning. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A27.Google Scholar
  13. Blumenstyk, G., & McCollum, K. (1999, April 16). Two reports question utility and accessibility in distance education. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A31.Google Scholar
  14. Boice, R. (1992). The new faculty member: Supporting and fostering professional development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  15. Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for Advancement of Teaching.Google Scholar
  16. Chacko, T. I. (1983). Student ratings of instruction: A function of grading standards. Educational Research Quarterly, 8(2), 19–25.Google Scholar
  17. Chait, R., & Trower, C. A. (1998, September/ October). Build it and who will come? Florida Gulf Coast University creates a faculty without tenure. Change, 30(5), 20–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chemerinsky, E. (1998). Is tenure necessary to protect academic freedom? American Behavioral Scientist, 41, 638–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chism, N. V. N. (1999). Peer review of teaching: A sourcebook. Bolton, MA: Anker.Google Scholar
  20. Cohen, PA. (1981). Student ratings of instruction and student achievement: A meta-analysis of multisection validity studies. Review of Educational Research, 51, 281–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Conrad, R. B., & Trosch, L. A. (1998). Renewable tenure. Journal of Law and Education, 27, 551–571.Google Scholar
  22. Contracts increasingly replace tenure. (1998, August 21). Science’s next wave. Internet document at
  23. Daley, B., Hart, J., & Zernike, K. (1998, October 13). All too often, tenure means less work, former trustee argues. The Boston Globe, p. B2. d’Apollonia, S., & Abrami, P. C. (1997). Navigating student ratings of instruction. American Psychologist, 52, 1187–1197.Google Scholar
  24. Diamond, R. M. (1993). Changing priorities and the faculty reward system. In R. M. Diamond & B. E. Adam (Eds.), Recognizing faculty work: Reward systems for the year 2000 (p. 512). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  25. Diamond, R. M., & Adam, B. E. (Eds.). (1993). Recognizing faculty work: Reward systems for the year 2000. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  26. Digest of education statistics. (1997). Washington, DC: United States Department of Education.Google Scholar
  27. Dilts, D. A., Haber, L. J., & Bialik, D. (1994). Assessing what professors do. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  28. Edgerton, R. (July/August, 1993). The re-examination of faculty priorities. Change, 25, 11–16.Google Scholar
  29. Engstrand, G. (1998). “Tenure wars”: The battles and the lessons. American Behavioral Scientist, 41, 607–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Epper, R. M. (1997). Coordination and competition in post-secondary distance education. Journal of Higher Education, 68, 551–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Estrin, R. (1998, November 18). The incredible shrinking Pell grant. The Charlotte Observer, p. 5A.Google Scholar
  32. Feldman, K. A. (1997). Identifying exemplary teachers and teaching: Evidence from student ratings. In R. P. Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds.), Effective teaching in higher education: Research and practice (pp. 368–395). New York: Agathon Press.Google Scholar
  33. Finkin, M. W (1996). The case for tenure. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.Google Scholar
  34. Fraley, L. E. (1998). Adverse implications for university teaching concealed in economically driven policies. The Behavior Analyst, 21, 289–305.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Freedland, R. M. (1999, February 19). How practical experience can help revitalize our tired model of undergraduate education. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. B6–B7.Google Scholar
  36. Glassick, C. E., Huber, M. T., & Maeroff, G. I. (1997). Scholarship assessed: Evaluation of the professoriate. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  37. Glenn, S. (1988). Contingencies and metacon-tingencies: Toward a synthesis of behavior analysis and cultural materialism. The Behavior Analyst, 11, 161–179.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Gmelch, W. H., & Miskin, B. V. (1993). Leadership skills for department chairs. Bolton, MA: Anker.Google Scholar
  39. Gose, B. (1999, February 19). Surge in continuing education brings profits for universities. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A51-A52.Google Scholar
  40. Green, M. (1998). Engell and Dangerfield’s view of college administration. Unpublished manuscript, University of North Carolina at Charlotte.Google Scholar
  41. Greene, R. (1998, October 8). Public college costs up 50% in decade. The Charlotte Observer, p.4A.Google Scholar
  42. Greenspoon, J. (1991). Behavioral analysis in higher education. In P. A. Lamal (Ed.), Behavioral analysis of societies and cultural practices (pp. 141–164). New York: Hemisphere.Google Scholar
  43. Greenwald, A. G., & Gillmore, G. M. (1997a). Grading leniency is a removable contaminate of student ratings. American Psychologist, 52, 1209–1217.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Greenwald, A. G., & Gillmore, G. M. (1997b). No pain, no gain? The importance of measuring course workload in student ratings of instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 743–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Guernsey, L. (1998, October 16). NYU starts for-profit unit to sell on-line classes. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A32.Google Scholar
  46. Halpern, D. E, Smothergill, D. W., Allen, M., Baker, S., Baum, C, Best, D., Ferrari, J., Geisinger, K. E, Gilden, E. R., Hester, M., Keith-Spiegel, P., Kierniesky, N. C, McGovern, T. V., McKeachie, W. J., Prokasy, W. E, Szuchman, L. T, Vasta, R., & Weaver, K. A. (1998). Scholarship in psychology: A paradigm of the twenty-first century. American Psychologist, 53, 1292–1297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Harper’s index. (1998, September). Harper’s Magazine, 297, 17.Google Scholar
  48. Healy, P. (1999, March 26). Mass. governor seeks to free some colleges from tenure and most regulations. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A43.Google Scholar
  49. Holden, C. (1998). Report paints grim outlook for young Ph.D.s. Science, 281, 1584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. How to add students without adding infrastructure. (1998, September 4). The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A42.Google Scholar
  51. Jarvis, D. K. (1991). Junior faculty develop-ment: A handbook. New York: Modern Language Association of America.Google Scholar
  52. Jervis, R. (1997). System effects: Complexity in political and social life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Karabell, Z. (1998). What’s college for? New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  54. Keller, E S. (1968). “Good-bye, teacher … ” Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 79– 89.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. Keller, E S., & Sherman, J. G. (1974). The Keller plan handbook. Menlo Park, CA: W. A. Benjamin.Google Scholar
  56. Keller, G. (1983). Academic strategy: The management revolution in American higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Kelley, P. (1998, August 9). UNC confronts multiple needs, limited funds. The Charlotte Observer, pp. 1A, 4A.Google Scholar
  58. L. A. law school teaches entirely online. (1998, September 21). The Charlotte Observer, p. 2A.Google Scholar
  59. Lamal, P. A. (Ed.). (1991). Behavioral analysis of societies and cultural practices. Washington, DC: Hemisphere.Google Scholar
  60. Leatherman, C. (1998, October 16). University of Phoenix’s faculty members insist they offer high-quality education. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A14–A16.Google Scholar
  61. Leatherman, C. (2000, January 28). Part-timers continue to replace full-timers on college faculties. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A18.Google Scholar
  62. Leslie, D. W (1998, October 16). Defining tenure: Tradition versus the new political economy of higher education. American Behavioral Scientist, 41, 625–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Levine, A. (1997). How the academic profession is changing. Daedalus, 126, 1–20.Google Scholar
  64. Li-Ping Tang, T, & Chamberlain, M. (1997). Attitudes toward research and teaching: Differences between administrators and faculty members. Journal of Higher Education, 68, 212–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Lynton, E. A., & Elwan, S. A. (1987). New priorities for the university. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  66. Machlup, E (1996). In defense of academic tenure. In M. W. Finkin (Ed.), The case for tenure (pp. 9–26). Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.Google Scholar
  67. Marsh, H. W, & Dunkin, M. J. (1992). Students’ evaluation of university teaching: A multi- dimensional perspective. In J. C. Smare (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 8, pp. 143–233). New York: Agathon Press.Google Scholar
  68. Marsh, H. W, & Roche, L. A. (1997). Making students’ evaluation of teaching effectiveness effective: The critical issues of validity, bias, and utility. American Psychologist, 52, 1187–1197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Matthews, D. (1998). Transforming higher education: Implications for state higher education funding policy. Educom Review, 35(5), 48–57.Google Scholar
  70. McGuigan, F. J. (1974). Amount learned: An empirical basis for grading teachers. Teaching of Psychology, 1, 10–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. McKeachie, W. J. (1997). Student ratings: The validity of use. American Psychologist, 52, 1218–1225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. McPherson, M. S., & Winston, G. C. (1996). The economics of academic tenure: A relational perspective. In M. W. Finkin (Ed.), The case for tenure (pp. 99–123). Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.Google Scholar
  73. Menges, R. J. (1999). Dilemmas of newly hired faculty. In R. J. Menges and Associates (Eds.), Faculty in new jobs: A guide to settling in, becoming established, and building institutional support (pp. 19–38). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  74. Murray, B. (1998, December). The bane of part-time faculty: Satisfying work, lousy benefits. APA Monitor, 29(12), 32–33.Google Scholar
  75. The nation. (1998, August 28). The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. 5–43.Google Scholar
  76. Nelson, C. (Ed.). (1997). Will teach for food: Academic labor in crisis. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  77. O’Brien, G. D. (1998). All the essential half-truths about higher education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  78. Olson, D., & Crawford, L. A. (1998). A five-year study of junior faculty expectations about their work. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 22, 39–54.Google Scholar
  79. Paulsen, M. B., & Feldman, K. A. (1995). Taking teaching seriously: Meeting the challenge of instructional improvement. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 2. Washington, DC: George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development.Google Scholar
  80. Powell, R. W (1977). Grades, learning, and student evaluation of instruction. Research in Higher Education, 7, 193–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Pratt, R. W (1997). Disposable faculty: Part-time exploitation as management strategy. In C. Nelson (Ed.), Will teach for food: Academic labor in crisis (pp. 264–277). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  82. Rakos, R. F. (1991). Assertive behavior: Theory, research, and training. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  83. Rakos, R. F. (1999, May). Chairing a psychology department: Reflections of a behaviorist. In R. F. Rakos (Chair), Examining organizational practices: Behavior-analytic contributions. Symposium presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Behavior Analysis, Chicago.Google Scholar
  84. Readings, B. (1996). The university in ruins. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  85. Schneider, A. (1999, February 19). When revising a curriculum strategy may trump pedagogy. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A14–A16.Google Scholar
  86. Seldin, P. (1997). The teaching portfolio: A practical guide to improved performance and tenure decisions (2nd ed.). Bolton, MA: Anker.Google Scholar
  87. Skinner, B. F. (1984). The shame of American education. American Psychologist, 39, 947–954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Sorcinelli, M. D. (1994). Effective approaches to new faculty development. Journal of Counseling and Development, 72, 474–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Soules, A., & Adams, E. (1998). Classroom technology: A view from the trench. Educom Review, 55(3), 50–53.Google Scholar
  90. Tien, F. D., & Blackburn, R. T (1996). Faculty rank system, research motivation, and faculty research productivity. Journal of Higher Education, 67, 2–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Tierney, W. G. (Ed.). (1998). Tenure matters: Rethinking faculty roles and rewards [Special issue]. American Behavioral Scientist, 41(5).Google Scholar
  92. Tierney, W G., & Rhoads, R. A. (1994). Faculty socialization as cultural process: A mirror of institutional commitment. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Vol. 22, No. 6. Washington, DC: George Washington University.Google Scholar
  93. Trautvetter, L. C. (1999). Experiences of women, experiences of men. In R. J. Menges and Associates (Eds.), Faculty in new jobs: A guide to settling in, becoming established, and building institutional support (pp. 59–87). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  94. Tucker, A. T. (1993). Chairing the academic department: Leadership among peers. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press.Google Scholar
  95. Turner, C. S. V., Myers, S. L., & Creswell, J. W (1998). Exploring underrepresentation: The case of faculty of color in the midwest. The Journal of Higher Education, 70, 27–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. United States. Department of Education. (1997). Fall staff in postsecondary institutions. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  97. Vasta, R., & Sarmiento, R. T. (1979). Liberal grading improves evaluations but not performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 207–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Weber, L. E. (1999). Survey of the main challenges facing higher education at the millennium. In W Z. Hirsch & L. E. Weber (Eds.), Challenges facing higher education at the millennium (pp. 1–17). Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education and Oryx Press.Google Scholar
  99. Wheeler, D. W, & Schuster, J. H. (1990). Building comprehensive programs to enhance faculty development. In J. H. Schuster & D. W Wheeler (Eds.), Enhancing faculty careers (pp. 275–297). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  100. Wilson, R. (1999, October 22). How a university created 95 faculty slots and scaled back its use of part-timers. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A18–A20.Google Scholar
  101. Winston, G. C. (1999). For profit higher education: Godzilla or Chicken Little. Change 31 (1), 13–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Wolverton, M., Gmelch, W H., Wolverton, M. L., & Sarros, J. C. (1999). Stress in academic leadership: U.S. and Australian department chairs/heads. The Review of Higher Education, 322, 165–185.Google Scholar
  103. The work of faculty: Expectations, priorities, and rewards. (1994, January/February). Academe, pp. 35–48.Google Scholar
  104. Wright, D. F. (2000). Faculty development centers in research universities: A study of resources and programs. In M. Kaplan (Ed.), To improve the academy: Resources for faculty, instructional and organizational development (pp. 291–302). Bolton, MA: Anker.Google Scholar
  105. Young, J. R. (2000, January 14). Faculty report at U. of Illinois casts skeptical eye on distance education. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A48.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. A. Lamal
    • 1
  • Richard F. Rakos
    • 2
  • Joel Greenspoon
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of North Carolina-CharlotteCharlotteUSA
  2. 2.Cleveland State UniversityUSA
  3. 3.University of North TexasUSA

Personalised recommendations