View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Examining Job Satisfaction for Contingent and Non-Contingent Faculty at a Public 2-Year College District in Texas

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Examining Job Satisfaction for Contingent and Non-Contingent Faculty at a Public 2-Year College District in Texas
Language: English
Authors: JoHyun Kim (ORCID 0000-0002-6197-9756), Denecia N. Spence, Amanda R. Stevens (ORCID 0000-0001-9588-9129)
Source: Community College Review. 2026 54(1):62-80.
Availability: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 19
Publication Date: 2026
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Two Year Colleges
Descriptors: College Faculty, Community Colleges, Job Satisfaction, Gender Differences, Racial Differences, Ethnicity, Intellectual Disciplines, Nontenured Faculty, Part Time Faculty, Adjunct Faculty, Educational Attainment
Geographic Terms: Texas
DOI: 10.1177/00915521251374673
ISSN: 0091-5521
1940-2325
Abstract: Objective: As institutions of higher education experience decline in state funding, researchers have highlighted the significant effect it has had on faculty and students. This study examines differences in job satisfaction between contingent and non-contingent faculty and their demographic and personal characteristics of gender, race/ethnicity, academic discipline, and academic achievement at a large public 2-year college district in Texas. Methods: This study investigates how class (contingent vs. non-contingent faculty), gender, and race/ethnicity interact to predict job satisfaction, indexed by responses on the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS). Intersectionality served as a theoretical framework in order to explore the complexities of faculty experiences as they relate to broader, overlapping patterns of societal oppression. Results: The findings reveal statistically significant differences between the job satisfaction scores of contingent and non-contingent faculty. Significant differences also exist between the job satisfaction scores of faculty based on academic discipline. Additionally, class and gender interact to predict job satisfaction. Conclusions: Systemic steps should be taken for legislative insight, and executive leadership teams should consistently empower contingent and non-contingent faculty groups to be advocates for themselves and embrace the principles of shared governance. These faculty groups can provide discipline-specific, industry, and operational insight that may not be obvious to leadership teams. Such insight will help students achieve their goals and will allow the State of Texas to compete effectively in the dynamic global economy.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1493678
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwG8Hcl6oYRpq2SH9uEw5XzXAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDHF5NS4Ah6g36AOq9gIBEICBm81Sds5wP-prBkljCBt9U_5wX6yXzkDJ0k9aJ262rU-tE-Fo5848x-4HjbujxEK3JFuzMMEa_mONuhHtPQ509PFcdQ2abhxO6q4Hg3U-NEShSYqNzJX-LTwK726dAH_ovL4f_9gZveD47a5iPqHht5EUNSb01iMhJaPl2jJ9aN7D3fONOju_uqrCzcgEMdnJrdfQzUIgaKIzZ8lP
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0190387808;ccr01jan.26;2025Dec23.05:52;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0190387808-1">Examining Job Satisfaction for Contingent and Non-Contingent Faculty at a Public 2-Year College District in Texas </title> <p>Objective: As institutions of higher education experience decline in state funding, researchers have highlighted the significant effect it has had on faculty and students. This study examines differences in job satisfaction between contingent and non-contingent faculty and their demographic and personal characteristics of gender, race/ethnicity, academic discipline, and academic achievement at a large public 2-year college district in Texas. Methods: This study investigates how class (contingent vs. non-contingent faculty), gender, and race/ethnicity interact to predict job satisfaction, indexed by responses on the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS). Intersectionality served as a theoretical framework in order to explore the complexities of faculty experiences as they relate to broader, overlapping patterns of societal oppression. Results: The findings reveal statistically significant differences between the job satisfaction scores of contingent and non-contingent faculty. Significant differences also exist between the job satisfaction scores of faculty based on academic discipline. Additionally, class and gender interact to predict job satisfaction. Conclusions: Systemic steps should be taken for legislative insight, and executive leadership teams should consistently empower contingent and non-contingent faculty groups to be advocates for themselves and embrace the principles of shared governance. These faculty groups can provide discipline-specific, industry, and operational insight that may not be obvious to leadership teams. Such insight will help students achieve their goals and will allow the State of Texas to compete effectively in the dynamic global economy.</p> <p>Keywords: contingent faculty; adjunct faculty; job satisfaction; community college; tenure; gender</p> <p>As state funding for higher education decreases, institutions have increased their reliance on non-tenure track and part-time faculty to reduce costs and maximize resources ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref1">24</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref2">64</reflink>]). In 2019, 63% of U.S. faculty appointments at 4-year institutions were contingent positions ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref3">2</reflink>]), generally defined as part- or full-time positions without the possibility of tenure ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref4">22</reflink>]). Whereas tenure-track faculty are usually focused on producing significant research and publishing, activities which lend themselves to acquiring grants and other forms of funding, contingent faculty are often employed to teach ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref5">11</reflink>]). Approximately 63% of faculty at 4-year institutions ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref6">2</reflink>]) and 67% of community college faculty ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref7">31</reflink>]) in the U.S. hold contingent contracts with their respective institutions. Administrators often view contingent faculty as at-will or fixed-term contract employees without a collective bargaining agreement, leading to relatively low levels of job security for the individuals who accept these appointments ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref8">45</reflink>]). Furthermore, research has demonstrated the significant impact that this trend has had on faculty and students ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref9">8</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref10">20</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref11">34</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref12">43</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref13">45</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref14">48</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref15">50</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref16">58</reflink>]). As [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref17">43</reflink>] noted, as the proportion of contingent faculty positions increases, opportunities for students to be engaged or immersed in meaningful learning environments are likely to decline. Contingent faculty members are frequently encumbered by poor compensation and competing commitments to multiple institutions ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref18">44</reflink>]), which may leave little in terms of the time, energy, or resources needed to focus on conscious instruction and student engagement. In contrast, tenure track faculty are typically provided with resources (e.g., consistent wages, responsibility to a single institution) that allow for more opportunities to engage with students in meaningful ways, factors that have been shown to be correlated with student success (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref19">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref20">24</reflink>]; but see [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref21">26</reflink>], for contrasting results).</p> <p>Job satisfaction among faculty is associated with positive outcomes in higher education, including a sense of dedication to one's institution, favorable relationships among colleagues, student learning outcomes, and quality pedagogy (see [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref22">52</reflink>]). However, much of the literature concerning faculty job satisfaction centers the experiences of full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty and disregards the experiences of their contingent counterparts ([<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref23">47</reflink>]). The present study addresses this gap in the literature on faculty job satisfaction in community college settings by investigating how faculty class (contingent vs. non-contingent faculty) influences job satisfaction. The impact of other demographic and personal characteristics, such as gender, race/ethnicity, academic discipline, and academic achievement on job satisfaction is also examined.</p> <hd id="AN0190387808-2">Literature Review</hd> <p>The tenure system was originally designed by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) as a way to protect the academic freedom of faculty ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref24">9</reflink>]). As a mechanism of due process, tenure serves to systematically ensure that faculty members are dismissed for legitimate reasons and not for the content of their academic pursuits ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref25">59</reflink>]). As a result of decreasing appropriations for colleges and universities, recent hiring trends reflect a diminishing prevalence of tenure and an associated increase in the reliance on contingent faculty ([<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref26">64</reflink>]). The degree to which these changes impact these faculty groups, student experiences and outcomes, and the goals of colleges and universities, is poorly understood. Furthermore, little is known about the roles that faculty characteristics like gender, race, and ethnicity might play under these circumstances, though some have pointed to the potential for these changes to exacerbate the pre-existing systemic gaps that create a multi-tiered system which differentially impacts contingent and non-contingent faculty ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref27">45</reflink>]). In addition, these changes in tenure practices may intensify the degree of oppression experienced by those who do not fit the traditional image of higher educational faculty. The current higher education rank system was created for a specific group, by that group. As such, observers should not be surprised that non-White, non-males do not scale the professional ranks at the same rate as white males ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref28">21</reflink>]). Some research suggests that heterosexual white men without disabilities in higher education are privy to a number of privileges, such as a greater sense of social inclusion, respect from students and co-workers, and various rewards, compared to other intersectional groups based on gender, race, LGBTQ status, and disability status ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref29">12</reflink>]). Minority ethnic women in particular are underrepresented in senior-level positions within higher education ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref30">7</reflink>]), and Black scientists are considerably less likely to receive some forms of external funding compared to their white counterparts ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref31">46</reflink>]), a factor that is frequently considered during tenure decisions.</p> <p>Instructional practices are also impacted by the shifting power dynamics associated with recent trends in hiring practices at colleges and universities ([<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref32">64</reflink>]). For example, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref33">54</reflink>] examined data from 1,559 full-time and adjunct faculty members and found that, while both groups agreed that rigor was an important factor in pedagogy, full-time faculty reported engaging in a greater degree of rigor compared to adjunct faculty. This finding may not be all too surprising, given that part-time faculty members are not afforded the same levels of job security, support, and compensation as their tenured counterparts ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref34">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref35">34</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref36">35</reflink>]), which are factors that may impact motivation. Changes in instructional practices associated with the shift toward a greater reliance on contingent faculty also have implications for student experiences, as contingent faculty members tend to have fewer opportunities to empower students through advising and mentorship ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref37">4</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref38">55</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref39">61</reflink>]), interactions that have been shown to promote self-regulated learning behaviors, academic achievement, and student retention ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref40">27</reflink>]). Even more, several studies have shown that receiving instruction from part-time faculty is associated with poorer student outcomes under some circumstances (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref41">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref42">25</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref43">32</reflink>]). For instance, in a cross-sectional examination of accounting student outcomes across 6 years, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref44">37</reflink>] observed that students taught by full-time faculty performed significantly better in advanced courses compared to students who took the same courses under part-time faculty members. However, findings regarding the impact of faculty status on student outcomes remains mixed, as others have found that students can perform just as well, and better in some cases, when taught by contingent faculty compared to their non-contingent peers (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref45">26</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref46">42</reflink>]).</p> <p>Increasing diversity within academia may add another layer of complexity to the issue of contingent employment. According to the [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref47">1</reflink>], though women's representation in academia is on the rise, only 44% of tenure-track positions and 36% of full professor positions are held by women, and women of color are particularly underrepresented among the ranks. Moreover, 93% of reporting higher education institutions compensate men faculty members more than women who hold the same position for at least one faculty ranking. Other evidence suggests that the increased salary that is typically associated with attaining tenure does not always extend to women faculty ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref48">3</reflink>]). Collectively, these statistics suggest that the gender pay gap in academia may be exacerbated by current trends toward a greater reliance on contingent appointments.</p> <p>Previous scholarship suggests that the gender gap in academia extends to job satisfaction as well, with women faculty reporting lower satisfaction with various aspects of faculty life compared to men (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref49">29</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref50">49</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref51">53</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref52">62</reflink>]). As job satisfaction is linked to faculty turnover and intention to persist in academia ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref53">53</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref54">63</reflink>]), these trends indicate a potential increase in faculty attrition and reduced hiring leverage for highly qualified faculty, particularly among women in academia. The importance of job satisfaction among faculty cannot be overstated given the direct impact that these individuals have in shaping the role of higher education in the lives of learners and society as a whole ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref55">40</reflink>]). Furthermore, an understanding of the factors associated with faculty job satisfaction would provide institutional stakeholders with crucial information related to faculty retention, well-being, and organizational commitment ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref56">28</reflink>]). The literature reviewed here points to a need for research that may lead to a better understanding of the impacts that hiring shifts in postsecondary educational institutions have on the professionals who are filling contingent positions, the students they work with, and the colleges and universities implementing said changes.</p> <hd id="AN0190387808-3">Theoretical Framework</hd> <p>As an approach, intersectionality allows for the examination of how an individual's multiple identities (e.g., those based on gender, race, ethnicity, or class) operate together to explain various experiences and outcomes ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref57">10</reflink>]). Multiple ways exist to describe identities that intersect, and it is not enough to consider only gender <emph>or</emph> ethnic groups. Intersectionality provides a framework to explore how different components of our being may be woven together to shape our identities and experiences in society ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref58">18</reflink>]). Moreover, this approach provides a scaffold for the examination of the interplay between individual-level identity, social identity, and systemic phenomena such as oppression and inequity, to which the academy is far from immune. In other words, the power relations that shape our experiences as individuals in society equally permeate the fabric of higher education ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref59">15</reflink>]). Employing an intersectional approach allows for more complex analysis of data to uncover systemic inequalities that limit our collective potential and perpetuate oppression and hardship for traditionally marginalized groups ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref60">16</reflink>]). Additionally, beyond race and gender, differences in class should be considered to understand the range of employees' experiences with diminished power at institutions of higher education ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref61">21</reflink>]). Therefore, it is crucial that research methods are utilized to address the intersection of gender, race, and class adequately, opposed to focusing exclusively on racial and gender differences in isolation. For these reasons, we have adopted an intersectional approach in the present study.</p> <hd id="AN0190387808-4">Purpose and Research Questions</hd> <p>The purpose of this study was to examine differences in job satisfaction between contingent and non-contingent faculty and their demographic and personal characteristics of gender, race/ethnicity, academic discipline, and academic achievement at a large public 2-year college district in Texas. The researchers also investigated how class (contingent vs. non-contingent faculty), gender, and race/ethnicity interacted to predict job satisfaction. The following research questions guided this study:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Do differences exist in faculty job satisfaction based on class (contingent vs. non-contingent faculty)?</item> <p></p> <item> o Do parallel differences exist in faculty job satisfaction based on other demographic and personal characteristics such as gender, race/ethnicity, academic achievement, and academic discipline?</item> <p></p> <item> Do gender, race/ethnicity, and class interact to predict job satisfaction?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0190387808-5">Method</hd> <p>We implemented a causal comparative design to explore cause-and-effect relationships between already-existing independent factors and dependent variable(s) ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref62">19</reflink>]). In particular, we examined the impact of faculty class (contingent vs. non- contingent) on job satisfaction. The effects of other demographic and personal variables such as gender, race/ethnicity, terminal degree, and academic discipline on their job satisfaction were investigated as well.</p> <hd id="AN0190387808-6">Sample and Data Collection</hd> <p>We utilized a purposive sampling method to produce a sample that is representative of a specific population. Researchers solicited participants using faculty information collected from the online directory for a large community college district in Texas where one of researchers is employed. An email invitation was sent to faculty at the beginning of the third week of classes in fall 2016 where they were asked to provide demographic and personal information and complete the 36-item survey.</p> <p>Faculty participation was voluntary, and those who opted in were not compensated for their participation. The final sample consisted of 363 of the 1,665 total faculty members employed at the Texas community college, yielding a response rate of 21.8%. Of the sample as a whole, 86 (23.7%) held full-time tenured positions, 69 (19%) were full-time tenure-track, 169 (46.5%) were part-time/adjunct, 14 (3.9%) held temporary full-time contracts, and 25 (6.9%) were designated as "other." Women accounted for 63.4% of the sample; 27.8% identified as non-white and 72.8% identified as white; 10.7% reported that a bachelor's degree was their highest attained, while 62.5% held master's degrees and 26.7% held doctoral or professional degrees. Finally, 62.0% of participants were classified as having a transfer/core concentration, whereas 17.1% were classified as technical/vocational faculty and 20.9% were classified as continuing/developmental education faculty.</p> <hd id="AN0190387808-7">Instrument</hd> <p>This study employed the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS; [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref63">56</reflink>]) to collect data on faculty job satisfaction. The JSS includes nine subscales related to job satisfaction: pay, promotion, supervision, fringe benefits, contingent rewards (i.e., performance-based rewards), operating procedures (i.e., the rules and procedures one is expected to follow), coworkers, nature of work, and communication. Possible overall scores on the JSS may range from 3 to 216. Job dissatisfaction is typically thought to be indicated by scores between 36 and 108, ambivalence is indicated by scores between 108 and 144, and scores between 144 and 216 indicate job satisfaction ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref64">57</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0190387808-8">Variables</hd> <p>Independent variables consisted of class (contingent vs. non-contingent faculty), gender (man vs. woman), race/ethnicity (non-white vs. white), academic achievement (bachelor's, master's, and doctoral/professional), and academic discipline (transfer/core, vocational/technical, and continuing/developmental), broadly defined. The dependent variables were total JSS scores (per participant) and individual scores on the nine subscales.</p> <hd id="AN0190387808-9">Data Analysis</hd> <p>All analyses were performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), and statistical significance was determined by employing an alpha level of.05. The researchers conducted a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine whether differences existed in faculty job satisfaction scores based on any of the four independent variables. Additionally, a factorial ANOVA was conducted to clarify how different combinations of gender, race/ethnicity, and class interacted to predict faculty job satisfaction. Internal consistency of the JSS was high (α =.86).</p> <p>This study is not without limitations. All faculty participants were employed by one specific community college district. Therefore, caution should be used when interpreting significant findings, as they may not generalize to other community colleges and community college districts.</p> <hd id="AN0190387808-10">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0190387808-11">Research Question One</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> RQ1—Do differences exist in job satisfaction of faculty class (contingent vs. non-contingent faculty) and of other demographic and personal characteristics such as gender, race/ethnicity, academic discipline, and academic achievement at a public 2-year college district in Texas?</item> </ulist> <p>Table 1 summarizes the descriptive statistics and ANOVA results which address the first research question regarding differences in faculty job satisfaction based on class, gender, race/ethnicity, academic achievement, and academic discipline.</p> <p>Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and ANOVA Results by Class, Gender, & Ethnicity (N = 363).</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th /><th align="center" colspan="2">Sample descriptive</th><th align="center" colspan="4">ANOVA results</th></tr><tr><th align="center">Class</th><th align="center">Non-Contingent</th><th align="center">Contingent</th><th /><th /><th /><th /></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td /><td>165 (45.5%)</td><td>198 (54.6%)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><th /><th align="center">Mean (<italic>SD</italic>)</th><th align="center">Mean (<italic>SD</italic>)</th><th align="center">Sum of squares</th><th align="center">Mean square</th><th align="center"><italic>F</italic> value</th><th align="center"><italic>p</italic>-Value</th></tr><tr><td>Pay</td><td>15.22 (4.90)</td><td>11.82 (5.50)</td><td>1,040.40</td><td>1,040.40</td><td>38.77<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">a</xref></td><td>.00<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">**</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Promotion</td><td>13.18 (4.85)</td><td>10.23 (5.15)</td><td>782.42</td><td>782.42</td><td>31.14</td><td>.00<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">**</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Supervision</td><td>19.68 (4.84)</td><td>21.15 (4.09)</td><td>195.20</td><td>195.20</td><td>9.57<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">a</xref></td><td>.00<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">**</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Fringe benefits</td><td>16.94 (4.29)</td><td>11.94 (5.40)</td><td>2,250.00</td><td>2,250.00</td><td>96.75<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">a</xref></td><td>.00<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">**</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Contingent rewards</td><td>15.66 (5.21)</td><td>14.62 (5.58)</td><td>98.18</td><td>98.18</td><td>3.35</td><td>.07</td></tr><tr><td>Operating conditions</td><td>13.27 (4.03)</td><td>16.33 (4.14)</td><td>840.28</td><td>840.28</td><td>50.17</td><td>.00<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">**</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Coworkers</td><td>19.30 (3.88)</td><td>20.68 (3.58)</td><td>169.84</td><td>169.84</td><td>12.28</td><td>.00<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">**</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Nature of work</td><td>21.18 (3.00)</td><td>21.38 (3.17)</td><td>3.71</td><td>3.71</td><td>0.39</td><td>.53</td></tr><tr><td>Communication</td><td>15.04 (4.80)</td><td>16.88 (4.88)</td><td>305.17</td><td>305.17</td><td>13.01</td><td>.00<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">**</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>149.47 (29.36)</td><td>145.02 (30.40)</td><td>1,779.39</td><td>1,779.39</td><td>2.07</td><td>.15</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td>Female</td><td>Male</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>230 (63.4%)</td><td>133 (36.6%)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Pay</td><td>13.8 (5.3)</td><td>12.7 (5.7)</td><td>105.67</td><td>105.67</td><td>3.52</td><td>.06</td></tr><tr><td>Promotion</td><td>11.7 (5.0)</td><td>11.3 (5.5)</td><td>13.30</td><td>13.30</td><td>0.47<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">a</xref></td><td>.50</td></tr><tr><td>Supervision</td><td>20.6 (4.3)</td><td>20.3 (4.8)</td><td>4.34</td><td>4.34</td><td>0.21</td><td>.64</td></tr><tr><td>Fringe benefits</td><td>14.5 (5.3)</td><td>13.7 (5.8)</td><td>47.42</td><td>47.42</td><td>1.49<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">a</xref></td><td>.22</td></tr><tr><td>Contingent rewards</td><td>15.4 (5.4)</td><td>14.6 (5.5)</td><td>42.85</td><td>42.85</td><td>1.46</td><td>.23</td></tr><tr><td>Operating conditions</td><td>14.7 (4.6)</td><td>15.3 (3.8)</td><td>27.41</td><td>27.41</td><td>1.60<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">a</xref></td><td>.21</td></tr><tr><td>Coworkers</td><td>20.0 (3.8)</td><td>20.1 (3.7)</td><td>1.72</td><td>1.72</td><td>0.12</td><td>.73</td></tr><tr><td>Nature of work</td><td>21.3 (3.3)</td><td>21.2 (2.7)</td><td>0.44</td><td>0.44</td><td>0.05</td><td>.83</td></tr><tr><td>Communication</td><td>16.1 (5.1)</td><td>16.0 (4.7)</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.00</td><td>.98</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>148.0 (29.4)</td><td>145.4 (28.7)</td><td>561.34</td><td>561.34</td><td>0.65</td><td>.42</td></tr><tr><td>Race/Ethnicity</td><td>White</td><td>Non-white</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>262 (72.8%)</td><td>101 (27.8%)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Pay</td><td>13.48 (5.49)</td><td>13.07 (5.53)</td><td>12.12</td><td>12.12</td><td>0.40</td><td>.53</td></tr><tr><td>Promotion</td><td>11.49 (5.20)</td><td>11.77 (5.28)</td><td>5.87</td><td>5.87</td><td>0.22</td><td>.64</td></tr><tr><td>Supervision</td><td>20.89 (4.12)</td><td>19.43 (5.24)</td><td>156.15</td><td>156.15</td><td>6.37<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">a</xref></td><td>.01<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn2">*</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Fringe benefits</td><td>14.17 (5.43)</td><td>14.33 (5.75)</td><td>1.84</td><td>1.84</td><td>0.06</td><td>.81</td></tr><tr><td>Contingent rewards</td><td>15.24 (5.47)</td><td>14.71 (5.34)</td><td>20.00</td><td>20.00</td><td>0.68</td><td>.41</td></tr><tr><td>Operating conditions</td><td>15.04 (4.29)</td><td>14.68 (4.56)</td><td>9.19</td><td>9.19</td><td>0.48</td><td>.49</td></tr><tr><td>Coworkers</td><td>20.28 (3.55)</td><td>19.46 (4.26)</td><td>49.86</td><td>49.86</td><td>3.00 <xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn1">a</xref></td><td>.09</td></tr><tr><td>Nature of work</td><td>21.42 (3.28)</td><td>21.24 (3.02)</td><td>2.34</td><td>2.34</td><td>0.24</td><td>.62</td></tr><tr><td>Communication</td><td>16.15 (5.03)</td><td>16.01 (4.89)</td><td>1.45</td><td>1.45</td><td>0.06</td><td>.81</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>145.01 (30.88)</td><td>147.82 (28.78)</td><td>577.47</td><td>577.47</td><td>0.67</td><td>.41</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Denotes use of Welch's test for Robust Tests of Equality of Means.</p> <p>2 p <.05. **p <.01.</p> <hd id="AN0190387808-12">Class and Job Satisfaction</hd> <p>Welch's <emph>F</emph> was interpreted in lieu of a traditional <emph>F</emph> test due to a violation of the assumption of homogeneity of variances. Results revealed statistically significant differences in job satisfaction between contingent and non-contingent faculty on the JSS subscales of pay, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref65">1</reflink>, 359) = 38.77, <emph>p</emph> <.001, ƞ<sups>2</sups> =.10; promotion, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref66">1</reflink>, 361) = 31.14, <emph>p</emph> <.001, ƞ<sups>2</sups> =.08; supervision, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref67">1</reflink>, 322) = 9.57, <emph>p</emph> <.001, ƞ<sups>2</sups> =.03; fringe benefits, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref68">1</reflink>, 361) = 96.75, <emph>p</emph> <.001, ƞ<sups>2</sups> =.21; operating conditions, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref69">1</reflink>, 361) = 50.17, <emph>p</emph> <.001, ƞ<sups>2</sups> =.12; coworkers, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref70">1</reflink>, 361) = 12.28, <emph>p</emph> <.001, ƞ<sups>2</sups> =.03; and communication, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref71">1</reflink>, 361) = 13.01, <emph>p</emph> <.001, ƞ<sups>2</sups> =.04.</p> <hd id="AN0190387808-13">Gender, Race/ethnicity, Academic Achievement, Academic Discipline, and Job Satisfaction</hd> <p>We found no significant differences in job satisfaction between men and women faculty in the sample. Regarding race/ethnicity, white faculty were found to report significantly higher job satisfaction scores relating to the supervision subscale (<emph>M</emph> = 20.9) compared to non-white faculty (<emph>M</emph> = 19.4), <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref72">1</reflink>, 322) = 6.37, <emph>p</emph> =.01, ƞ<sups>2</sups> =.02. Academic achievement did not significantly impact scores for any of the nine subscales of the JSS, although we observed a general trend of decreasing satisfaction with increasing level of education.</p> <p>Results revealed statistically significant differences in job satisfaction based on academic discipline on all nine subscales of the JSS (see Table 2). Post hoc analyses (the Games-Howell test when the assumption of homogeneity of variances was violated, and the Tukey HSD test when it was not) were performed to clarify differences between transfer/core, technical/vocational, and continuing/developmental education faculty on the JSS. Results revealed that continuing education faculty were more satisfied than transfer education faculty in promotion (<emph>p</emph> <.001), contingent rewards (<emph>p</emph> <.001), coworkers (<emph>p</emph> =.01), nature of work (<emph>p</emph> =.04), and communication (<emph>p</emph> =.01). Continuing education faculty were also more satisfied than vocational education faculty in supervision (<emph>p</emph> <.001), operating conditions (<emph>p</emph> <.001), and communication (<emph>p</emph> =.01). Vocational education faculty were more satisfied than transfer education faculty in pay (<emph>p</emph> <.001) and fringe benefits (<emph>p</emph> <.001). Overall (i.e., collapsed across JSS subscales), continuing/developmental education faculty reported higher job satisfaction scores (<emph>M</emph> = 158.1) than transfer/core faculty (<emph>M</emph> = 142.9). The difference in overall JSS scores between continuing/developmental education faculty and training/vocational faculty (<emph>M</emph> = 148.4) was not significant, nor was the difference in overall scores between transfer/core faculty and training/vocational faculty.</p> <p>Table 2. Descriptive Statistics and ANOVA Results by Academic Achievement and Discipline (N = 363).</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th /><th align="center" colspan="3">Sample descriptive</th><th align="center" colspan="4">ANOVA results</th></tr><tr><th align="center">Academic achievement</th><th align="center">Bachelor'</th><th align="center">Master's</th><th align="center">Doctoral</th><th /><th /><th /><th /></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td /><td>39 (10.7%)</td><td>227 (62.5%)</td><td>97 (26.7%)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><th /><th align="center">Mean (<italic>SD</italic>)</th><th align="center">Mean (<italic>SD</italic>)</th><th align="center">Mean (<italic>SD</italic>)</th><th align="center">Sum of squares</th><th align="center">Mean square</th><th align="center"><italic>F</italic> value</th><th align="center"><italic>p</italic>-Value</th></tr><tr><td>Pay</td><td>15.23 (5.21)</td><td>13.18 (5.58)</td><td>13.05 (5.31)</td><td>153.38</td><td>76.69</td><td>2.56</td><td>.08</td></tr><tr><td>Promotion</td><td>11.85 (5.33)</td><td>11.34 (5.19)</td><td>11.99 (5.26)</td><td>32.15</td><td>16.07</td><td>0.59</td><td>.56</td></tr><tr><td>Supervision</td><td>20.44 (4.97)</td><td>20.52 (4.53)</td><td>20.40 (4.28)</td><td>1.11</td><td>0.55</td><td>0.03</td><td>.97</td></tr><tr><td>Fringe benefits</td><td>15.54 (5.25)</td><td>14.00 (5.52)</td><td>14.19 (5.57)</td><td>79.32</td><td>39.66</td><td>1.31</td><td>.27</td></tr><tr><td>Contingent rewards</td><td>15.59 (5.76)</td><td>15.22 (5.35)</td><td>14.58 (5.51)</td><td>39.35</td><td>19.68</td><td>0.67</td><td>.51</td></tr><tr><td>Operating conditions</td><td>15.82 (4.82)</td><td>14.92 (4.44)</td><td>14.64 (3.96)</td><td>39.14</td><td>19.57</td><td>1.03</td><td>.36</td></tr><tr><td>Coworkers</td><td>19.92 (3.87)</td><td>20.13 (3.70)</td><td>19.92 (3.95)</td><td>3.86</td><td>1.93</td><td>0.14</td><td>.87</td></tr><tr><td>Nature of Work</td><td>21.77 (2.63)</td><td>21.35 (2.96)</td><td>20.94 (3.53)</td><td>21.85</td><td>10.92</td><td>1.14</td><td>.32</td></tr><tr><td>Communication</td><td>14.74 (5.66)</td><td>16.50 (4.75)</td><td>15.51 (4.91)</td><td>141.77</td><td>70.89</td><td>2.96</td><td>.05</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>150.90 (31.69)</td><td>147.16 (29.67)</td><td>145.21 (27.78)</td><td>909.95</td><td>454.97</td><td>0.53</td><td>.59</td></tr><tr><td>Academic discipline</td><td>Transfer</td><td>Vocational</td><td>Continuing</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>225 (62.0%)</td><td>62 (17.1%)</td><td>76 (20.9%)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Pay</td><td>12.6 (5.5)</td><td>14.9 (5.1)</td><td>14.3 (5.5)</td><td>334.31</td><td>167.16</td><td>5.68</td><td>.00<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">**</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Promotion</td><td>10.8 (5.1)</td><td>12.2 (4.6)</td><td>13.2 (5.7)</td><td>350.61</td><td>175.31</td><td>6.64</td><td>.00<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">**</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Supervision</td><td>20.0 (4.7)</td><td>20.1 (4.6)</td><td>22.1 (3.3)</td><td>249.43</td><td>124.71</td><td>9.35 <xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">a</xref></td><td>.00<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">**</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Fringe benefits</td><td>13.5 (5.6)</td><td>15.9 (5.0)</td><td>15.1 (5.2)</td><td>370.59</td><td>185.30</td><td>6.28</td><td>.00<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">**</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Contingent rewards</td><td>14.5 (5.5)</td><td>15.3 (5.5)</td><td>16.8 (4.6)</td><td>315.34</td><td>157.67</td><td>6.53<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn3">a</xref></td><td>.00<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">**</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Operating conditions</td><td>15.0 (4.4)</td><td>13.7 (4.0)</td><td>15.9 (4.4)</td><td>167.21</td><td>83.60</td><td>4.48</td><td>.01<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">*</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Coworkers</td><td>19.8 (3.9)</td><td>19.7 (3.8)</td><td>21.2 (3.0)</td><td>129.04</td><td>64.52</td><td>4.62</td><td>.01<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">*</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Nature of work</td><td>21.0 (3.2)</td><td>21.6 (2.6)</td><td>22.0 (2.9)</td><td>60.97</td><td>30.49</td><td>3.23</td><td>.04<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">*</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Communication</td><td>15.8 (4.9)</td><td>15.2 (4.9)</td><td>17.5 (4.7)</td><td>220.74</td><td>110.37</td><td>4.65</td><td>.01<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">*</xref></td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>142.9 (29.7)</td><td>148.4 (27.5)</td><td>158.1 (27.2)</td><td>13,154.47</td><td>6,577.23</td><td>7.92</td><td>.00<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn4">**</xref></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>3 Denotes use of Welch's test for Robust Tests of Equality of Means.</item> <item>4 p <.05. ** p <.01.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0190387808-14">Research Question Two</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> RQ2—Do gender, race/ethnicity, and class interact to predict job satisfaction?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0190387808-15">Class, Gender, and Job Satisfaction</hd> <p>While the main effect of gender was not significant (<emph>p</emph> =.66), there was a significant main effect of class, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref73">1</reflink>, 359) = 3.86, <emph>p</emph> =.05, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.01. Table 3 includes the two-way ANOVA results. In addition, the findings revealed that gender and class interacted to predict job satisfaction, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref74">1</reflink>, 359) = 4.94, <emph>p</emph> =.03, <ephtml> <math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math> </ephtml> =.01. Between men and women contingent and non-contingent faculty, men with non-contingent contracts reported the greatest degree of overall job satisfaction (<emph>M</emph> = 153.3), whereas job satisfaction scores were lowest for men in contingent faculty positions (<emph>M</emph> = 139.9). For women, job satisfaction scores were only slightly higher for those with non-contingent contracts (<emph>M</emph> = 148.4) compared to those with contingent positions (<emph>M</emph> = 147.6).</p> <p>Table 3. Two-Way ANOVA: Total Job Satisfaction by Gender and Class.</p> <p>Graph</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><colgroup><col align="left" /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /><col align="char" char="." /></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="center">Source</th><th align="center"><italic>SS</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>df</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>MS</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>F</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>Sig.</italic></th><th align="center"><p><math display="inline" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow xmlns=""><msubsup><mi>η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></mrow></math></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Corrected model</td><td>6,431.34<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tfn5">a</xref></td><td>3</td><td>2,143.78</td><td>2.52</td><td>.06</td><td>.02</td></tr><tr><td>Intercept</td><td>7,165,679</td><td>1</td><td>7,165,679</td><td>8,414.96</td><td>.00</td><td>.96</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td>161.99</td><td>1</td><td>161.99</td><td>0.19</td><td>.66</td><td>.00</td></tr><tr><td>Class</td><td>3,286.68</td><td>1</td><td>3,286.68</td><td>3.86</td><td>.05</td><td>.01</td></tr><tr><td>Gender × Class</td><td>4,207.07</td><td>1</td><td>4,207.07</td><td>4.94</td><td>.03</td><td>.01</td></tr><tr><td>Error</td><td>305,703</td><td>359</td><td>851.54</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>8,160,612</td><td>363</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Corrected total</td><td>312,134</td><td>362</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>5 R squared =.021 (Adjusted R squared =.012).</p> <hd id="AN0190387808-16">Class, Race/Ethnicity, and Job Satisfaction</hd> <p>Numerically, variance was observed in job satisfaction scores based on class and race/ethnicity. Overall, non-white non-contingent faculty members reported being less satisfied with their jobs (<emph>M</emph> = 143.3) than white non-contingent faculty members (<emph>M</emph> = 151.7). Interestingly, non-white contingent faculty members (<emph>M</emph> = 146.4) were more satisfied compared to white contingent faculty members (<emph>M</emph> = 144.5). However, the overall interaction between class and race/ethnicity was not significant, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref75">1</reflink>, 359) = 2.23, <emph>p</emph> =.14.</p> <hd id="AN0190387808-17">Race/Ethnicity, Gender, and Job Satisfaction</hd> <p>An interesting pattern emerged regarding the relationship between race/ethnicity and gender. Whereas non-white women faculty, regardless of class (contingent or non-contingent), were less satisfied with their positions (<emph>M</emph> = 143.1) than white women faculty (<emph>M</emph> = 149.9), non-white men were overall more satisfied with their jobs (<emph>M</emph> = 148.4) than white men (<emph>M</emph> = 144.3). However, the interaction between race/ethnicity and gender did not reach statistical significance, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref76">1</reflink>, 359) = 2.33, <emph>p</emph> =.13.</p> <hd id="AN0190387808-18">Discussion</hd> <p>While it is encouraging to know that faculty members on and off the tenure track were generally satisfied with their jobs, it is worth noting that this study revealed nuance regarding faculty job satisfaction. Results showed that, overall, transfer/core faculty was the only group whose average scores fell outside the satisfied range on the JSS (144–216; [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref77">57</reflink>]). However, gender, race/ethnicity, and faculty status were shown to interact to predict job satisfaction. When these variables were considered together, findings indicated that non-white women, men who held contingent positions, and non-white faculty who held non-contingent positions reported levels of job satisfaction below the satisfied range. It is important to note that although JSS scores for these groups did not indicate job satisfaction, they did not necessarily indicate dissatisfaction. In fact, all four groups fell within the ambivalent range (108–144; [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref78">57</reflink>]). Thus, it would be a mistake to be overly optimistic or pessimistic about faculty job satisfaction at this 2-year college district until more is known about the effect of ambivalence on job performance.</p> <p>Even satisfied faculty groups in this study were only marginally satisfied, as indicated by JSS scores on the lower end of the 144 to 216 range ([<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref79">57</reflink>]). This finding indicates opportunities for institutions to improve the faculty job experience for all demographic groups. Because data were not collected about faculty members' length of service, it is difficult to know if the mildly positive outlook captured in this study is sustainable for contingent and non-contingent faculty groups. The Coalition on the Academic Workforce ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref80">14</reflink>]) found that over 80% of contingent faculty were employed on a part-time basis for over 3 years, and 75% of contingent faculty indicated interest in tenure-track opportunities. This finding suggests there may be unexplored layers of the faculty job satisfaction paradigm that should be addressed, particularly as it relates to contingent faculty. Such insight will be invaluable, as approximately 65% of faculty at American higher education institutions are employed on a contingent basis ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref81">2</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref82">31</reflink>]) though not all contingent faculty are interested in tenure-track opportunities ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref83">14</reflink>]).</p> <p>Findings from the current study suggest that gender and race/ethnicity are not significant indicators of job satisfaction. Perhaps additional data are needed on racial/ethnic groups to capture insight into how white and non-white faculty experience contingent and non-contingent work at the 2-year college district in this study. Additionally, although class was a statistically significant indicator of job satisfaction, when paired with other variables, the findings revealed that not all non-contingent faculty were more satisfied than contingent faculty, as was the case for female non-contingent faculty members who were less satisfied than their contingent counterparts. It is possible that factors external to the employment environment are pertinent to understanding female contingent and non-contingent job satisfaction trends in the 2-year college district in this study. It is also possible that a more complex understanding of the policies and politics of inclusion within the district will reveal how stratified identities experience the work environment.</p> <p>The value of the instrument used in this study is that it provided insight about satisfaction with various aspects of the job, which enabled the researchers to make distinctions between with which aspects of their work faculty members were satisfied or dissatisfied. For instance, while faculty consistently indicated satisfaction with academic work across demographic groups on and off the tenure-track, contingent faculty members were generally dissatisfied with pay and promotion opportunities. Additionally, some faculty members were less satisfied with their jobs as their level of academic achievement increased. This finding is somewhat consistent with recent research showing that increased age is associated with lower levels of job satisfaction, particularly for men in academia ([<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref84">63</reflink>]). Together, these results may suggest that factors like burnout and disillusionment—feelings that can sometimes arise with advanced age and after a significant amount of time spent working within a particular system—are at play. To gain clearer insight, it may be necessary to capture a more complex demographic profile to understand different faculty groups. Greater understanding of these nuances will allow institutions to improve the examination of additional faculty characteristics that are more cogent indicators of job satisfaction than are class, gender, race/ethnicity, academic achievement, and academic discipline. Moreover, fundamental questions should be asked about what happens to faculty job performance when they are pleased with the nature of their work but dissatisfied with communication patterns or leadership teams. Given the importance of student outcomes and the growing trend of tying funding levels to student success, answers to such questions may help institutions achieve their missions and improve faculty satisfaction with effective departmental and organizational policies.</p> <hd id="AN0190387808-19">Limitations</hd> <p>The analysis of job satisfaction based on academic discipline revealed statistically significant differences between transfer/core, technical/vocational, and continuing/developmental education faculty on all JSS subscales and on overall job satisfaction. While the present study addressed gaps in the literature related to discipline-specific differences in job satisfaction, the researchers did not collect data to determine whether faculty in different academic discipline clusters reported to the same dean. Thus, because academic disciplines were clustered into three groups and administrative structures were not examined, valuable insight may be missing. Specifically, it is common for different academic disciplines to share the same academic deans in 2-year college environments. Perhaps the administrative structure is relevant to providing a more holistic analysis of understanding faculty job satisfaction.</p> <p>A second potential limitation of the present study relates to the willingness of participants to report dissatisfaction. Some evidence suggests that adjunct faculty are hesitant to highlight their deplorable working conditions, despite the importance of providing honest insight to better serve students ([<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref85">51</reflink>]). However, change will not be enacted if problems and concerns go unaddressed or are unrepresented in the consciousness of institutional leaders ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref86">36</reflink>]). Equitable environments are important because faculty conditions appear to affect student performance ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref87">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref88">23</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref89">24</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref90">34</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref91">36</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref92">48</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0190387808-20">Implications for Research and Practice</hd> <p>Future research should consider qualitative and mixed-methods studies to gain insight into the nuances underlying individual-level job satisfaction within different demographic and geographical contexts. In addition, though the present study represents an attempt to examine the impact of several intersecting identities on job satisfaction, it is not possible to fully capture all possible intersecting identities in a single study. In the future, researchers should explore the impact of other identities on faculty job satisfaction. For example, as federal protections for LGBTQ communities expand, it is vital that we aim to understand how these faculty groups are being served or under-resourced and how faculty within these groups perceive job satisfaction. In addition, colleges should deploy transparent systems of review to assess whether traditional inclusion initiatives ignore compounding factors of the complex nature of identity for faculty across racial, ethnic, and gendered demographic categories that intersect with sexual orientation and gender identity.</p> <p>Interestingly, the current study revealed that non-contingent female faculty were less satisfied than their female contingent peers. This finding implies the possible existence of external factors that make contingent work more appealing to some faculty groups. Future research should explore these external factors, as well as how they may interact with gender identity to predict faculty job satisfaction. More generally, understanding the needs of both contingent and non-contingent faculty groups will help leadership implement policies that better serve their faculty, students, and institutional goals.</p> <p>The over-representation of white faculty in this study should prompt administrators to question whether faculty diversity affects student outcomes at individual colleges and within the district. [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref93">39</reflink>] reported that African American and Asian students perceived white faculty as less fair, respectful, and appreciative of diversity compared to white students. Serious questions should be raised about the intercultural competencies of faculty and how institutions assess the skills of contingent and non-contingent faculty groups to prepare them to interact with diverse groups of domestic and international students. Asking such questions represents an important step toward the confrontation of oppression and inequities experienced by individuals who relate to one or more marginalized identities ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref94">17</reflink>]). Each college and university has its own leadership team, organizational culture, and demographic concerns for students and faculty. Moreover, each individual within the higher education system, whether they are occupying a student, faculty, staff, or administrative role, enters the academic space with their own unique set of personal, interpersonal, and cultural experiences. We urge individuals occupying all roles within the academy to prioritize a sense of intercultural consciousness, such that these unique predispositions are acknowledged, appreciated, accommodated, and celebrated ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref95">33</reflink>]). Future research should center the issue of intercultural consciousness in higher education in order to elucidate and improve upon relations between students, faculty, and staff. This may be especially relevant in the context of community colleges, where students' cultural backgrounds tend to be more diverse than those in 4-year universities ([<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref96">38</reflink>]), and where these institutions serve as vital entry points for learners who may feel that their personal values and aspirations are not reflected in higher education (e.g., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref97">41</reflink>]). While no single formula exists to integrate diverse students, institutions should consider the climate and make changes based on current and emerging needs. Interviews with faculty and students of color may help institutions to clarify the challenges of extricating institutional experiences from the power context within which they exist ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref98">30</reflink>]).</p> <p>The comparative data on Americans in the service sector and other employees in higher education confirm that overall job satisfaction for faculty in this study was higher than both groups at large. This finding may be reflective of district culture or campus-specific initiatives that mitigate lower job satisfaction levels with better wages. Additionally, individuals who are interested solely in financial benefits often do not gravitate toward academic careers. Perhaps the low satisfaction with pay is a reality that faculty are willing to accept because of other benefits that are not readily available in the private sector. Still, it is important to consider the changing nature of the economy. As the number of research-oriented roles in the private sector increases, so do the opportunities for candidates with advanced degrees to work outside of academia. Employers in the private sector who understand the nature of academic work may strategically leverage time-management skills and autonomy of the contingent workforce to achieve long- and short-term goals, which will make it difficult for institutions of higher education to have continued access to this pool of highly qualified and skilled professionals. As such, colleges and universities must be willing to compete to recruit and retain highly qualified faculty. Failure to be creative and adaptable will limit the long-term competitiveness of academic institutions. More broadly, legislators should understand that the short-term savings that are incurred from increasing the contingent workforce at institutions of higher education may foster employment environments that are not conducive to realizing desired long-term educational attainment goals. To support these goals and sustain institutional vitality, it is essential to build strong networks within and across academia that can inform and influence legislators and the public about the value of higher education in a global economy. These networks can also play a key role in shaping the societal structures, philosophies, and policies enacted on campuses and in classrooms.</p> <p>Finally, as Texas plans to improve undergraduate student success ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref99">60</reflink>]), faculty input should be invited. Faculty input can add diverse perspectives to the creation of policy and create support for policies during the implementation phase. Additionally, administrators and executive leadership teams should empower contingent and non-contingent faculty groups to be advocates for themselves and embrace shared governance principles. These faculty groups can provide discipline-specific, industry, and operational insight that may not be obvious to administrators and executive leadership teams. Such insight will help students achieve their goals and will help the State of Texas to compete effectively in a dynamic global economy.</p> <ref id="AN0190387808-21"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref47" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> American Association of University Professors (AAUP). (2018). The annual report on the economic status of the profession, 2017–18. https://<ulink href="http://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/ARES%5f2017-18.pdf">www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/ARES%5f2017-18.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref3" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> American Association of University Professors (AAUP). (2022). The 2022 AAUP survey of tenure practice. https://<ulink href="http://www.aaup.org/file/2022%5fAAUP%5fSurvey%5fof%5fTenure%5fPractices.pdf">www.aaup.org/file/2022%5fAAUP%5fSurvey%5fof%5fTenure%5fPractices.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref48" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Ashraf J., Aydin R. (2009). Revisiting the gender earnings gap in academia: Evidence from new data. Southern Business and Economic Journal, 32(3/4), 1–10.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref37" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Astin A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory of higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 40(5), 518–529.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref34" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bakley A. L., Brodersen L. A. (2018). Waiting to become: Adjunct faculty experiences at multi-campus community colleges. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 42, 129–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2017.1279090</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref19" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Baldwin R. G., Wawrzynski M. R. (2011). Contingent faculty as teachers: What we know; what we need to know. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(11), 1485–1509. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764211409194</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref30" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bhopal K. (2020). Gender, ethnicity, and career progression in UK higher education: A case study analysis. Research Papers in Education, 35(6), 706–721. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2019.1615118</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref9" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bickerstaff S., Ran F. X. (2020). How did six community colleges design supports for part-time faculty? A report on Achieving the Dream's Engaging Adjuncts project. (CCRC Report). Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center. https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/publications/six-community-colleges-supports-part-time-faculty.html</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref24" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bowden R. G. (2009). The postsecondary professoriate: Problems of tenure, academic freedom, and employment law. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 13(3), 17–36.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Browne I., Misra J. (2003). The intersection of gender and race in the labor market. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 487–513. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.29.010202.100016</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Caye J. S., de Saxe Zerden L. (2014). Development of promotion materials for social work non–tenure track faculty: Internal and external factors. Journal of Social Work Education, 50, 535–547.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cech E. A. (2022). The intersectional privilege of white able-bodied heterosexual men in STEM. Science Advances, 8, eabo1558. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abo1558</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Charlier H. D., Williams M. R. (2011). The reliance on and demand for adjunct faculty members in America's rural, suburban, and urban community colleges. Community College Review, 39, 160–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552111405839</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coalition on the Academic Workforce. (2012, June). A portrait of part-time faculty members: A summary of findings on part-time faculty respondents to the coalition on the academic workforce survey of contingent faculty members and instructors. <ulink href="http://www.academicworkforce.org/CAW%5fportrait%5f2012.pdf">http://www.academicworkforce.org/CAW%5fportrait%5f2012.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Collins P. H., Bilge S. (2020). Intersectionality. John Wiley & Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Corneille M., Lee A., Allen S., Cannady J., Guess A. (2019). Barriers to the advancement of women of color faculty in STEM: The need for promoting equity using an intersectional framework. Equality Diversity and Inclusion An International Journal, 38(3), 328–348. https://doi.org/10.1108/edi-09-2017-0199</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crenshaw K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crenshaw K. W. (2012). From private violence to mass incarceration: Thinking intersectionally about women, race, and social control. UCLA Law Review, 59, 1418–1472.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Creswell J. (Ed.). (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publication.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cronin T., Smith H. (2011). Protest, exit, or deviance: Adjunct university faculty reactions to occupational rank-based mistreatment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 2352–2373.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Croom N., Patton L. (2011). The miner's canary: A critical race perspective on the representation of black women full professors. Negro Educational Review, 62/63(1–4), 13–39.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Curtis J. W., Thornton S. (2013). Here's the news: The annual report on the economic status of the profession, 2012–13. Academe, 99(2), 4–86.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Diegel B. L. (2013). Perceptions of community college adjunct faculty and division chairpersons: Support, mentoring, and professional development to sustain academic quality. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 37, 596–607. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2012.720863</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eagan M. K., Jaeger A. (2009). Effects of exposure to part-time faculty on community college transfer. Research in Higher Education, 50, 168–188.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eagan M. K., Jaeger A. J. (2008). Closing the gate: Part-time faculty instruction in gatekeeper courses and first-year persistence. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2008(115), 39–53.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ellegood W. A., Bernard Bracy J., Sweeney D. C., Duncan M., Burns K. (2019). Measuring the impacts of administrative policies on student performance in higher education. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 43(3), 418–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877x.2017.1363386</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> García-Ros R., Pérez-González F., Cavas-Martínez F., Tomás J. M. (2019). Effects of precollege variables and first-year engineering students' experiences on academic achievement and retention: A structural model. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29, 915–928.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gazioglu S., Tansel A. (2006). Job satisfaction in Britain: Individual and job related factors. Applied Economics, 38(10), 1163–1171.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hesli V. L., Lee J. M. (2013). Job satisfaction in academia: Why are some faculty members happier than others? Political Science and Politics, 46(2), 339–354.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hooks B. (2003). Teaching community: A pedagogy of hope (Vol. 36). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hurlburt S., McGarrah M. (2016). Cost savings or cost shifting? The relationship between part-time contingent faculty and institutional spending. American Institutes for Research.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jacoby D. (2006). Effects of part-time faculty employment on community college graduation rates. Journal of Higher Education, 77(6), 1081–1103.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jaime-Diaz J., Ramos D. C. (2023). Testimonios of Mexican American students along the community college pathway: Intercultural conciencia as an act of responsiveness. Community College Review, 51(2), 173–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/00915521221145315</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson I. Y. (2011). Contingent instructors and student outcomes: An artifact or a fact? Research in Higher Education, 52, 761–785.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jolley M. R., Cross E., Bryant M. (2014). A critical challenge: The engagement and assessment of contingent, part-time adjunct faculty professors in United States community colleges. Community College Journal of Research & Practice, 38(2-3), 218–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2014.851969</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kezar A., Sam C. (2013). Institutionalizing equitable policies and practices for contingent faculty. Journal of Higher Education, 84, 56–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2013.11777278</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kirk F. R., Spector C. A. (2009). A comparison of the achievement of students taught by full-time versus adjunct faculty in business courses. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 15(2), 73–81.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kisker C. B., Cohen A. M., Brawer F. B. (2023). The American community college. John Wiley & Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee J. A. (2010). Students' perceptions of and satisfaction with faculty diversity. College Student Journal, 44, 400–412.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Machado-Taylor M. D. L., White K., Gouveia O. (2014). Job satisfaction of academics: Does gender matter? Higher Education Policy, 27(3), 363–384.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Major J. C., Godwin A. (2018). Towards making the invisible engineer visible: A review of low-socioeconomic students' barriers experiencing college STEM education. [Paper presentation]. IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, San Jose, CA. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2018.8659241</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maxson C. (2017). Full-time and adjunct faculty priorities for online instructional behavior. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 20(2), n2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meixner C., Kruck S. E., Madden L. T. (2010). Inclusion of part-time faculty for the benefit of faculty and students. College Teaching, 58, 141–147.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mueller B., Mandernach B., Sanderson K. (2013). Adjuncts versus full-time faculty: Comparisons of student outcomes in the online classroom. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(3), 341–351.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murray D. S. (2019). The precarious new faculty majority: Communication and instruction research and contingent labor in higher education. Communication Education, 68(2), 235–245.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Institute of Health (NIH). (2019, October 9). Research topic contributes to persistent gap in NIH research grants to black scientists [Press release]. https://<ulink href="http://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/research-topic-contributes-persistent-gap-nih-research-grants-black-scientists">www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/research-topic-contributes-persistent-gap-nih-research-grants-black-scientists</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nelson G., Monson M. J., Adibifar K., Tinoca L. (2020). The gig economy comes to academia: Job satisfaction among adjunct faculty. Cogent Education, 7(1), 1786338. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186x.2020.1786338</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ochoa A. (2012). Contingent faculty: Helping or harming students? Journal of the Professoriate, 6, 136–151.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Okpara J. O., Squillace M., Erondu E. A. (2005). Gender differences and job satisfaction: A study of university teachers in the United States. Women in Management Review, 20(3), 177–190.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ran F. X., Sanders J. (2020). Instruction quality or working condition? The effects of part-time faculty on student academic outcomes in community college introductory courses. AERA Open, 6(1), 1–18.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rentz K. (2010). Standing up for good teaching: The business communication academic as activist. Business Communication Quarterly, 73, 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/1080569909358677</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rich T. (2015). A worthy asset: The adjunct faculty and the influences on their job satisfaction. To Improve the Academy, 34(1-2), 156–170.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosser V. J. (2004). Faculty members' intentions to leave: A national study on their worklife and satisfaction. Research in Higher Education, 45(3), 285–309.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schutz K. R., Drake B. M., Lessner J. (2013). Do community college full-time and adjunct faculties differ in their perceptions of rigor in assigning grades? American Journal of Educational Studies, 6(2), 59–79.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schwartz J. M. (2014). Resisting the exploitation of contingent faculty labor in the neoliberal university: The challenge of building solidarity between tenured and non-tenured faculty. New Political Science, 36, 504–522. https://doi.org/10.1080/07393148.2014.954803</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spector P. E. (1985). Measurement of human service staff satisfaction: Development of the Job Satisfaction Survey. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13, 693–713.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spector P. E. (1994). Interpreting satisfaction scores with the Job Satisfaction Survey. <ulink href="http://shell.cas.usf.edu/~pSpector/scales/jssinterpretation.html">http://shell.cas.usf.edu/~pSpector/scales/jssinterpretation.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stenerson J., Blanchard L., Fassiotto M., Hernandez M., Muth A. (2010). The role of adjuncts in the professoriate. Peer Review, 12(3), 23–26.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stripling J. (2011 May 15). Most presidents prefer no tenure for majority of faculty. Chronicle of Higher Education. <ulink href="http://chronicle.com/article/Most-Presidents-Favor-No/127526/">http://chronicle.com/article/Most-Presidents-Favor-No/127526/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. (2015, July 23). Texas higher education strategic plan 2015–2030. <ulink href="http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/PDF/6862.PDF?CFID=41531877&CFTOKEN=29618147">http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/reports/PDF/6862.PDF?CFID=41531877&CFTOKEN=29618147</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tinto V. (1988). Stages of student departure: Reflections on the longitudinal character of student leaving. Journal of Higher Education, 59(4), 438–455.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Umbach P. D. (2008). Gender equity in college faculty pay: A cross-classified random effects model examining the impact of human capital, academic disciplines, and institutions [Paper presentation]. Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), New York, NY.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Webber K. L., Rogers S. M. (2018). Gender differences in faculty member job satisfaction: Equity forestalled? Research in Higher Education, 59, 1105–1132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-018-9494-2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wheaton A. (2020). Shift happens: Moving from the ivory tower to the mushroom factory. Higher Education Research & Development, 39(1), 67–80.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0190387808-22"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> JoHyun Kim</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>Graph</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6197-9756 Amanda R. Stevens</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext>Graph https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9588-9129</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By JoHyun Kim; Denecia N. Spence and Amanda R. Stevens</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>JoHyun Kim, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor in Educational Administration and Human Resource Development at Texas A&M University. Her research focuses on the high school-to-college transition, factors affecting students' access and success in higher education, dual enrollment, equity of access to STEM, and community colleges as linkage institutions between high schools, adult education, and the workforce. Specifically, her research examines how underserved youth and adult students can succeed in higher education settings.</p> <p>Dr. Denecia N. Spence is an educator, higher education consultant, and curriculum innovator with over 20 years of experience in private-sector and higher education staff development, instructional design, and institutional transformation. From the Richland campus of Dallas College, she has led transformative initiatives in curriculum quality, accreditation, and leadership training across the Dallas College system, championing culturally responsive, trauma-informed, and anti-colonial teaching practices that empower students. Holding an Ed.D. in Educational Leadership from East Texas A&M University (formally branded as Texas A&M University–Commerce), Dr. Spence has trained hundreds of educators, implemented data-driven systems to improve retention, and developed equity-focused models that connect learning to opportunity. Guided by the conviction that education is never neutral, she creates programs that affirm identity, dismantle exclusion, and position institutions, particularly in the Caribbean and Global South, to claim their share of the $10 trillion global education economy.</p> <p>Dr. Amanda R. Stevens is an Assistant Professor of Psychological Sciences at Tarleton State University. She earned her Ph.D. in Educational Psychology from East Texas A&M University, with an emphasis on cognitive experimental research methods. Dr. Stevens's research centers the interplay between emotion, memory, and metacognition, particularly in higher education contexts. She has also studied STEM identity development and equity in higher education, with recent work in the Community College Journal of Research and Practice, the International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology, and the Journal of Diversity in Higher Education.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref97"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref99"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1493678
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Examining Job Satisfaction for Contingent and Non-Contingent Faculty at a Public 2-Year College District in Texas
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22JoHyun+Kim%22">JoHyun Kim</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6197-9756">0000-0002-6197-9756</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Denecia+N%2E+Spence%22">Denecia N. Spence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Amanda+R%2E+Stevens%22">Amanda R. Stevens</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9588-9129">0000-0001-9588-9129</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Community+College+Review%22"><i>Community College Review</i></searchLink>. 2026 54(1):62-80.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 19
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Two+Year+Colleges%22">Two Year Colleges</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Faculty%22">College Faculty</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Community+Colleges%22">Community Colleges</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Job+Satisfaction%22">Job Satisfaction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Gender+Differences%22">Gender Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Racial+Differences%22">Racial Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ethnicity%22">Ethnicity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intellectual+Disciplines%22">Intellectual Disciplines</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Nontenured+Faculty%22">Nontenured Faculty</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Part+Time+Faculty%22">Part Time Faculty</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adjunct+Faculty%22">Adjunct Faculty</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Attainment%22">Educational Attainment</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Texas%22">Texas</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1177/00915521251374673
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0091-5521<br />1940-2325
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Objective: As institutions of higher education experience decline in state funding, researchers have highlighted the significant effect it has had on faculty and students. This study examines differences in job satisfaction between contingent and non-contingent faculty and their demographic and personal characteristics of gender, race/ethnicity, academic discipline, and academic achievement at a large public 2-year college district in Texas. Methods: This study investigates how class (contingent vs. non-contingent faculty), gender, and race/ethnicity interact to predict job satisfaction, indexed by responses on the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS). Intersectionality served as a theoretical framework in order to explore the complexities of faculty experiences as they relate to broader, overlapping patterns of societal oppression. Results: The findings reveal statistically significant differences between the job satisfaction scores of contingent and non-contingent faculty. Significant differences also exist between the job satisfaction scores of faculty based on academic discipline. Additionally, class and gender interact to predict job satisfaction. Conclusions: Systemic steps should be taken for legislative insight, and executive leadership teams should consistently empower contingent and non-contingent faculty groups to be advocates for themselves and embrace the principles of shared governance. These faculty groups can provide discipline-specific, industry, and operational insight that may not be obvious to leadership teams. Such insight will help students achieve their goals and will allow the State of Texas to compete effectively in the dynamic global economy.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1493678
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1493678
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1177/00915521251374673
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 19
        StartPage: 62
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: College Faculty
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Community Colleges
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Job Satisfaction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Gender Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Racial Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Ethnicity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intellectual Disciplines
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Nontenured Faculty
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Part Time Faculty
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adjunct Faculty
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Attainment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Texas
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Examining Job Satisfaction for Contingent and Non-Contingent Faculty at a Public 2-Year College District in Texas
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: JoHyun Kim
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Denecia N. Spence
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Amanda R. Stevens
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2026
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0091-5521
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1940-2325
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 54
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Community College Review
              Type: main
ResultId 1