Any serious student of higher education who has missed the blip on his or her radar screen of part-time faculty as an issue of serious proportions needs to develop and use another warning system. The stems of two titles from texts on this phenomenon give even the uninitiated a sense of the problem.  The Invisible Faculty by Gappa and Leslie and Strangers in their Own Land by Roueche, Roueche, and Milliron both document a growing practice that  may have serious long-term consequences. 

The Use of Part-Time Faculty

The statistics are startling and undeniable. The employment of a part-time professorate has exploded in higher education in recent years. The National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF) documents growth between 1987 and 1992 as 2.6% for full-time faculty and 47.7% for part-time faculty (Schuster, 1998).  More revealing may be the growth in numbers over the 22-year period of 1970-1992.  Schuster (1998) provides the following picture (shown as per cent of total): 1970-22%, 1983-32%, and 1992-42%. Nowhere has this growth been more pronounced than in the community colleges where the numbers are even more startling. In an era of remarkable growth, full-time faculty are up 15% while part-time faculty are up 300% (Roueche, Roueche, and Milliron, 1996).  In some situations the community colleges may have part-time faculty accounting for as much as 70% of all faculty. A confounding factor is the manner in which the counts are conducted.  In Virginia the community college system (VCCS) numbers are reported as full-time equivalents (FTE’s). In a recently completed reporting cycle (1997-1998), there were 1,867 full-time faculty and part-time faculty were responsible for 1,618 FTE’s (VCCS, 1999).  Converting these figures to per cents would reveal that 53.6% are full-time faculty.  The head count, however, reveals there are 4,735 individuals employed in a part-time capacity throughout the system.  Converting counts of individuals to percentages reveals that 72% of this faculty is part-time.

In order to understand the implications that these numbers present, one must consider a number of issues that relate to the employment of part-time faculty. It is likely that part-time faculty first came on the payrolls as a matter of expediency. They were used to plug holes and were employed with little anticipated impact. It is also possible the practice began to grow as an extension of the use of graduate students in a teaching capacity. While the issue of genesis may not be resolvable, it is very easy to understand what is currently driving the rapidly growing practice.  It is the same engine that drives all market economies--money.

As Levine (1997) notes, higher education is a mature industry. In its developmental stage, as is common with most evolving industries, it experienced steady growth. In the twentieth century the growth has been spectacular as large numbers of individuals began to see higher education as a viable opportunity.  This shift in perception began with the GI bill in 1946 and was fueled by subsequent events such as the need for knowledge created by the launch of Sputnik in 1957 and the baby boomers reaching college age.  When an industry matures, it can only expect marginal growth. Now almost 60% (Levine, 1997, p. 2) of high school graduates are engaging in some form of post-secondary education during their lifetime.  It is unlikely that explosive new numbers will be knocking on the academy’s door.

Another phenomenon associated with mature industries is that they lose their attractiveness, and Levine (1997) suggests that government reacts in two ways.  First, funding begins to dry up.  This is certainly true at both the federal and state levels.  The situation in most states has become so tight that institutions of higher education are competing with prisons for funds (Gibbs, 1999). At the federal level funding has shifted away from direct institutional grants to funding the consumer.  This latter form of funding has shifted from no-strings-attached grants to loans, which now are aggressively tracked for repayment purposes. A companion issue that Levine (1997) finds with the funding shift is the tendency for governments to begin to assert control of mature industries. We can see this in the growing concern for efficiency in the expenditure of dollars. 

Shrinking government dollars left the academy with two choices. One was considered painful to external stakeholders, and one was considered painful to internal stakeholders.  The first was to raise the price of admission and the second was to cut costs, or both were used.

One would expect that the first place administrators in higher education would look to cut expense is in the largest expenditure budget lines. It is no secret that in higher education personnel fits this criterion. Cutting personnel costs is not easily accomplished. Many faculty, and certainly the highest paid, come with tenure and are not subject to the corporate model of “downsizing” or “rightsizing.”  Therefore, the use of part-time faculty began to gain momentum. When vacancies occur, they need not be filled with high-priced, tenure-protected individuals. Also, when demand created the need for additional teaching staff, it was no longer the practice to hire traditional faculty.

The benefits of this practice were several.  First, there was a market glut of qualified individuals (Will, April 25, 1999, B7).  Secondly, wages, which were traditionally low, could be held at levels that appear artificial when compared to other markets, which use highly skilled employees. A third advantage was the savings on a benefits package, which can add over 30%  to a salary base. Finally, they could be hired or fired without noticeable organizational disruption.  In effect they came really cheaply and had the added benefit of making administrations more nimble in personnel matters.

It was an almost painless way to cut costs. None of the enfranchised parties lost their share of the pie and the disenfranchised were allowed in the door.   Further, since the outcomes of higher education tend to be nebulous when defined in mission statements, and since no one was really focused on the outcomes issue, it was easy to avoid considering the potential impacts of this change in the traditional employment practice.

This, however, may no longer be the case. Students of higher education have begun to give part-time faculty serious consideration (Gappa and Leslie, 1993; Roueche, Roueche, and Milliron, 1995; Schuster, 1998; Boyer 1990, Fairweather and Henderson, 1990; AAUP).  The literature is now discussing numerous issues related to part-time faculty and the potential problems associated with this class of employee.  Further, part-time faculty is beginning to gain a voice, which has the potential to alter some of the practices that are currently benefiting many institutions of higher education.  The Chronicle of Higher Education (February 27, 1998) in discussing unionization of part-time faculty at Columbus College in Chicago noted that low pay, substandard working conditions, and uneven treatment were so severe that faculty at this institution were receiving sympathy and support from full-time faculty.  One must certainly consider the paradox of those defending a lower class hired to protect their benefits.

The issues and solutions are not as simple as unions and better pay. Gappa and Leslie (1993) call part-time faculty "the invisible faculty" as they state “they remain a largely unrecognized, under rewarded, and invisible part of the academy” (p. 4).  Foster and Foster (1998) cited a situation of a student threatening a part-time faculty member over a low grade.  The thrust of the threat was “you don’t want me to speak badly about you” [read bad student evaluation] (p. 28).  Perhaps as revealing as anything is the list of terms that has grown up as euphemisms for this group.  These terms include “the academic underclass,” "freeway flyers," “a corps of unregulated personnel,” “hopeful part-timers,” “anchorless street-corner men,” “MIAs,"  “gypsy scholars,” “necessary evils,” and “invisible and expendable” (Banachowski, 1996, p. 57).

If the sense from the list above is not clear, Gappa and Leslie (1993) make the point with an economy of words.  They call the practice a “bifurcated system” (2, 12, 43, 193-196, 228-229, 230).  Their point is the academy is populated with “haves” and “have-nots.”  But it is not their intention to convey this in only an economic sense.  They are referring to more subtle commodities like value, respect, and worth.  Further, this unsympathetic treatment of part-timers is universal. The “part-timers we interviewed” had experienced such treatment(p. 43).  Roueche, Roueche, and Milliron (1995) report similar findings in their book Strangers in their Own Land.

The fact that they are undervalued and under-appreciated has several implications worth considering.  First is the issue of loyalty.  Children learn early in childhood not to like those who appear not to like them.  Beyond this simple analogy there are complex issues.  Corporate America, in the last decade, has begun to consider employees as disposable.  The new shibboleth is “use them up and throw them away.”  The January issue of Fortune (February 1, 1999) in a cover story entitled “Finished at 40” noted this is a practice gaining wide acceptance.   In fact, Foster and Foster titled a recent article in Academe (1998) “It’s a Buyer’s Market: Disposable Faculty.”  There is, however, a very significant and serious difference between the corporation and the academy, and it has nothing to do with the humane treatment of employees.  The former has an absolutely metric bottom line.  If a practice helps, it shows up in the form of profits, and if it hurts, it shows up as losses.  The measurement of academic outcomes is difficult at best, and it is certainly not metric in nature.  Since the investigation of the problems created by divided loyalty may not be answerable in terms of outcome measures, perhaps it is possible to consider other avenues.

Dill (1991) has studied the management of academic culture through the use of meaning and social integration.  Key components in this process are myth, ritual, and symbolism (p. 189).  In order to convey meaning and derive the benefits of social integration, the notion of value has to have extreme saliency for the members of the group, but the trend for all faculty has been to devalue membership at the institutional level. Jencks and Riesman (1963) in their seminal work The Academic Revolution described the trend of faculty orientation away from the institution and toward the professional discipline.  If the full-time faculty is not institutionally loyal, it is unlikely it will carry the institution's message to part-time faculty in the mediums of myth, ritual, and symbolism.  An additional problem is that this “meaning” must be learned.  If part-time faculty is rarely present and has a tendency to be transient in nature, it is probable they will never learn the institution's meaning.  In its final ramification it is equally likely that part-time faculty will not or cannot carry this “meaning” to their students.  Banachowski (1996) notes that part-time faculty operate in a “state of ambiguity because they have no clear perception of their situation" (p. 51).  This failure to integrate these faculty into the institution has been found in several research studies according to Banachowski, including Monore and Denman, 1991; Cohen, 1992; McGuire, 1993 (p. 55).

If part-time faculty do not develop organizational loyalty, several conditions are likely to occur.   First, their only presence on campus will occur during times when they are compensated.  Second, they will have a strong tendency to be transient. These two conditions lead to other problems, such as the  “false economies” of using part-time faculty (Gappa and Leslie, pp.13, 87, 97, 102-105). These occur as a result of part-time faculty not being on campus to keep office hours, advise, counsel, or participate in decisions. While the institution is saving dollars on offices, phones, and computers, it is losing a resource in a critical function--teaching. Benjamin (1998) points out that 40-60% of part-time faculty do not keep office hours (p 26). The slack must be picked up by full-time faculty whose numbers may be stagnant or shrinking. This is the “false economy.”

Having considered what part-time faculty may not do, it is also important to consider what it does in its core activity.  If they are only paid to teach, they should do this at acceptable levels.  The evidence is somewhat mixed.  Numerous studies have cited little or no difference between full-time and part-time faculty in terms of teaching skill (Gappa and Leslie, 1993, 120, 124-125; Roueche, Roueche, and Milliron, 1996b, 107).  But this should not leave one to dismiss this as “not a problem.”  One need only recall the problem described above by Foster and Foster whose scenario details a shrewd student with a subtle threat. Certainly, the issue is not lost on students when they see teachers in the classroom who seem only tangentially involved with the institution.  Further, it is reasonable to ponder how they view the transfer of work from full-time faculty to part-time faculty.  Is it possible students see it in terms of their own worth to the institution, or could they view it as the deprofessionalization of the professorate?  Beyond this is the issue of pandering to students for good evaluations. Another disconcerting finding is that part-time faculty rely on expediency to accomplish their task.  One indicator of this problem is student assignments.  Benjamin (1998) found that in a time when the market is demanding students who can write well part-time faculty are 50% less likely to use essay exams when compared to full-time faculty (p. 26).  In another finding Banachowski (1996) notes that grade inflation, already an epidemic, is even more in evidence from part-time faculty, which further compromises the integrity of the academy and calls into question the issue of values.

Measurement of impacts and outcomes is almost impossible in anything other than a subjective manner. The inability to tease out the effects of part-time faculty should not be an excuse to ignore possible negative consequences. Roueche, Roueche and Milliron (1996) have documented exemplary practices used to deal with part-time faculty in community colleges.  They list six areas for treatment include the following:

·         Recruiting

·         Selecting

·         Orientating

·         Staff development

·         Evaluation

·         Integration (p. 40-42)

It would seem that a common thread through all six of these processes is effective communication.  Two case studies may be illustrative in demonstrating this point.

Case Studies

 

Marlys Styne (1997) was chair of the English Department in a suburban Chicago college when it opened a new campus in 1993. She had been through twelve years without being able to replace seven full-time openings.  She hoped this new campus would offer that opportunity but this was not to be the case. In the late summer of 1993 she was faced with the task of hiring 33 part-time faculty.  She sent out a “cattle call” (p. 51) and winnowed the pool down to 50 who were all brought into a group interview at the same time. Thirty-three were eventually hired.

This faculty was subjected to being “bumped” (p. 51) up until the day the class met. This caused several to quit.  The semester catalogs were printed with “To Be Announced” in the column that lists instructor. Beginning in 1994 part-time faculty previously hired began to drop out with little notice and full-timers had to teach overloads. Styne states there were cases when just “plain poor teaching alienated students” (p. 52).  Part-timers who had been with the system quit when a full-time position finally opened but only outsiders were interviewed for the opening.

Styne cites managing part-time faculty as a problem. Texts were chosen for part-time faculty but were not distributed until classes met because of the “bumping” problem. This makes preparation and syllabus development difficult. Seven to eight teachers were assigned to one office, but she notes her faculty was appreciative for access to their own drawer. She comments that mailboxes were a problem and “getting the word out is not always feasible” (p. 53). She complained her bureaucracy was too complex, and getting keys, parking, duplicating, and AV services could be arduous for the uninitiated. She did provide a handbook, the Guide for Part-Time Teachers, but states that it may have gone unread. Given these problems she has resorted to paying stipends to two full-time faculty members to mentor part-timers. The mentor program was voluntary for part-timers but compensated for full-timers.  She invited all part-timers to faculty meetings, but few attended.  Her concluding hope is that she will eventually be allowed to hire more full-time instructors.

This case study contains examples of both undesirable and failed communication.  One can only wonder what it would be like to participate in a mass job interview. It certainly seems to convey a message of low value. Not being given a text, waiting until the day classes start to confirm a teaching assignment, assigning eight instructors to an office, an unresponsive system, low pay, and exclusion from full-time consideration all convey a message of low value. Failed communication is equally obvious. Unattended meetings, unread manuals, and a defective mail system would be very strong indicators.

In order to investigate this situation more closely, a case study of a state community college system was undertaken. The intent was to identify communication mechanisms and make some assessment of their relative effectiveness. 

The Virginia Community College System (VCCS), responsible for 23 separate colleges, with a total of 38 campuses, had a total enrollment of 74,295 full-time students, representing 215,709 individuals in 1997-98 (VCCS, 1999).  The system employs 1,867 full-time faculty who are supplemented by part-time faculty teaching 1,618 FTE’s across the Commonwealth of Virginia.  These part-timers are actually 4,735 individual people. Depending on how you count, the full-time/part-time ratio is roughly either 50/50 or 30/70.

The stated mission of the VCCS is to ensure that individuals in diverse regions of Virginia have access to educational opportunity. This is accomplished through personnel that the system employs and physical resources that the system owns. The faculty is the principal mode of knowledge transfer, which in turn provides opportunity.  Since the faculty is the principal medium, it would be a reasonable expectation that the institution would want to maximize the benefit from this resource. 

Generally, faculty enhancement falls under the rubric of professional development. In the VCCS professional development is carried out at both the state and individual institution level.   At the state level the system provides the Professional Development Initiative.  Glancing over a program description would give the uninformed reader the impression this is a mature and developed program. In fact, it may be just that, but it is a program which serves primarily full-time faculty.  If the focus of interest becomes part-time faculty, then the investigation must look at the campus level.

Based on the information supplied by the VCCS Division of Employee Relations, it was possible to contact the VCCS Human Resource Officers on the 23 campuses.  A broadcast mailing was sent on March 23, 1999.  This mailing generated eleven responses.  The information was surprisingly consistent.  Virtually all respondents indicated that the responsibility for faculty enhancement lay outside their office with a Dean, typically Dean of Instruction.  Further, all respondents indicated they provided a handbook for part-time faculty that was separate and distinct from the handbook provided to full-time faculty. 

Another mailing was sent to the eleven respondents requesting a copy of the part-time faculty handbook.  A total of seven part-time faculty handbooks were received.  Besides the handbook as a means of transferring information, virtually all respondents indicated that they had some form of dedicated session, at least once a year, for part-time faculty.

A single community college was targeted for further investigation.  Once the college was selected, the Human Resources Officer was contacted and a follow-up interview was conducted.  On March 29, 1999, the Human Resources Officer was interviewed.  He (the male pronoun is used throughout) confirmed the information in the e-mail responses received from the other Human Resources officers.  His institution also provided a handbook and a "Welcome Aboard" session. His responsibilities were only the maintenance of a central file system and payroll.  At this college the responsibility for part-time faculty lay with the Dean of Instruction.  The Human Resources Manager indicated that he had only limited knowledge about the process.  Based on the information provided, a follow-up interview was scheduled with the Dean.

On March 31, 1999, an interview was conducted with the Dean.  He indicated that while he was only acting in the capacity of Dean of Instruction he had been with the institution several years and had an extensive knowledge about both history and practice.  He indicated that while he had titular responsibility for part-time faculty the real responsibility had devolved from his office to the three Division Chairs of Humanities/Social Sciences, Science/Technology, and Business.

When queried about the nature of the program that provided for part-time faculty, he noted the handbook.  He characterized it as about 15 years old and a mature product.  Further, he described it as "useful."  The only programmatic intervention was a fall meeting, which he called a "Macro-group" one-day orientation (a meeting about one hour in duration followed by a reception).  The responsibility for this event is in the hands of the Division Chairs. 

The interviewer asked, "What would you do with more resources?"  He responded, "If the chairs do their jobs correctly [select well], not much further is necessary."  The Dean had a preference for the use of part-time faculty and went on to cite reasons which are often cited as criticisms of the practice in the literature.  He also referenced the economic issue that part-timers give him flexibility to use his faculty as he needs them without being stuck with recurring costs during down cycles.

In describing the specific situation at the college, he noted that geographical proximity to a four-year institution of higher education yielded a number of positive externalities. The community is rich in talent insuring an available and eager pool of employees. He said many come seeking employment for motivational factors other than pay.  He conceded pay was extremely low.  Further citing trends in funding (the 1990's downturn after the 1980's bonanza), he expected that his current practice will continue without modification.  When asked what the most serious problems were, he avoided the question with "The benefits outweigh the negatives, at least in [the city]."  In the future he sees a move away from traditional academic faculty as a result of partnering with community employers. This he speculated may further reduce the need to provide traditional professional development programs.

In order to reach the program level where services are provided at this college, an interview was scheduled April 7, 1999, with the Division Chair of Humanities/Social Sciences.  He, too, put a good deal of stock in the College's proximity to a four-year institution.  He was emphatic about the need to shift personnel in and out.   He noted that personnel costs were 90% of his budget and he could not chain himself to an employee class that is permanent. He noted that there had been tuition cuts, and SCHEV (State Council of Higher Education for Virginia) had not replaced the funds. Further, funding came in three-year cycles, and current year funding could be out of sync with third-year allocation. 

He commented that his current ratio of 50/50 full-time to part-time was not desirable.  When pressed, he described 70/30 as preferable.  (The overall state ratio is closer to 30/70.)  When pushed about the problems of part-time faculty, he noted the college lost advising, counseling, and office hours.  On the other hand, he said there was no need to provide facilities such as phones, offices, and computers. 

When queried about professional development for part-timers, he noted a legacy from the past president whose policy was to have the college pay half of the travel expense for part-time faculty engaged in professional development. He conceded this practice might be unique to his campus.  He claimed little direct knowledge about the handbook but did say he had submitted suggestions. 

In terms of evaluating his faculty, he relied on student evaluations exclusively.  A notice to improve follows poor evaluations.  Failure to respond to this notice (i.e., get better evaluations) is considered grounds for not renewing a contract.  Again, after being pressed to respond to the issue of the needs that part-time faculty may have, he equivocated.  He seemed to rely on the fact that he pulled from a very sophisticated labor pool and did not need to provide this faculty with special treatment.

On the specific issue of communication he did make some concession for the need to "get the word out…especially when dealing with instruction in parallel courses" which, he noted, needed integration.  He also noted that money for part-time faculty was pooled at the Dean of Finance and Administration level and that he did not have control of or access to this money.  He did say that given the generally poor manner of treatment accorded part-time faculty at his institution he felt it necessary to provide benefits on a personnel basis (e.g., advising faculty who might not know the bureaucracy when they qualify for reclassification).

The two case studies reviewed seem to indicate that the findings cited in the literature are borne out through the administrative perspective.  Part-time faculty is viewed as an expendable source of labor.  Further, this faculty does not warrant much in the way of institutional investment.  But this is only half the picture.  The writer intends to complete this investigation through field study of part-time faculty in a community college. 

Conclusion   

An argument already offered is that the lack of evidence regarding a problem should not allow the luxury of ignoring the potential negative effects a problem can create. The preponderance of evidence offered suggests there is ample reason to be concerned about the growing practice of using part-time faculty in higher education.

Two publications by Roueche, Roueche, and Milliron (1996, 1994) discuss practices which integrate part-time faculty into the organization. They note six areas in which the institution can take a proactive approach. One of their publications (1996a) discusses the Part-Time Faculty Integration Model, which addresses a number of problems including communication. Integration with the organization, they note, takes place "during socialization, decision making, and communication" (p. 35). A finding alluded to previously reports that "the number of contacts and the relative depth of the connections affected organization identification [by the individual]" (p. 35).

In order to benefit from these and other findings, institutions of higher education and particularly community colleges need a new orientation for part-time faculty. One premise of any program should be based on the findings in the literature. Specifically, a superficial attempt to provide new treatments for part-time faculty will probably be detected as such and will have little or no corrective value. It is probably best to continue "business as usual" until the organization is prepared to make a top-down commitment, including resources, and then follow through.

Once the organization is willing to make a commitment, it needs to explore the nature of its particular circumstance. It is unlikely that a single approach or silver bullet solution will be effective. A number of self-study techniques such as focus groups, task forces, and Delphi Techniques can be employed. Once the nature and extent of the problem(s) and concern(s) are understood, it is possible to take action. One interesting compendium of techniques is 1001 Exemplary Practices (1994) which, under the combined topics of professional development and mentoring, offers  suggestions.

Any program undertaken should have some common elements. The six processes identified by Roueche, Roueche, and Milliron (1996a) need to be given careful consideration and attention. An example offered by the authors would be selection. They note some faculty will be satisfied in a part-time role. Selection should attempt to sort applicants on this trait. They suggest that "by relying simply on laissez faire, unsolicited application-based recruiting, community colleges may be setting themselves up for high turn over and dissatisfied employees. We are not saying that any part-timer who wants full-time status should not be hired; however, we strongly question the practice of 'dangling' a full-time position to motivate part-time faculty" (p. 43). The message here is get a very clear message and give a very clear message.

Communication deserves particular emphasis. Critical to long-term effects will be the communications that occur in the first semester of employment. Mentoring has long been a viable technique to promote this process. It is relatively inexpensive and is too important to leave as an informal process. Institutions also need to attend to the development of communication channels among the part-timers beyond a dedicated handbook. One way to do this, which also promotes integration into the organization, is inclusion of part-time faculty in the decision-making process in a manner that gives value. Support of professional development sends a strong message and should further faculty commitment to the institution. Roueche, Roueche, and Milliron (1996) go so far as to suggest "the creation of a special services contract that specified one-time functional service...and provided a stipend" (p. 44). Finally, any activity, function, or celebration should make an obtrusive effort to include part-time faculty, and this communicates the message of value and promotes integration.

Bibliography

Statement from the conference on the growing use of part-time faculty. (1998). Academe, 84, (1) 54-60.

Banachowski, G. (1996). Review of part-time faculty in the community college.  Community College Review, 24, (Fall) 49-62.

Benjamin, E. (1999).On the excessive reliance of part-time faculty. Academe, 84, (1). 26.

Callan, P. (1996). Toward a new consensus. Liberal Education, 82, (Summer).

Dill, D. (1991). The management of academic culture: notes on the management of meaning and social and social integration. In Peterson, M. (ed.). Organization and Governance of Higher Education. Needham Heights, MA: Simon and Schuster.

Finished at forty. (1999, February 1). Fortune, 139, 50-66.

Foster, D. and Foster, E. (1998). It’s a buyers market: disposable faculty. Academe, 84, (Jan/Feb), 28-32.

Gibbs, A. (1999). Changing government roles relative to higher education. In American College Personnel Association. Trends Analysis in Higher Education. Washington, DC: Author.

Gappa, J. and Leslie, D. (1993). The Invisible Faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Glass, R. and Setier, J. (1999). Persuasion, Influence, and Confidence Gaining. Needham, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Jencks, C.  and Riesman, D. (1963). The Academic Revolution. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

Lawler, E. (1996). From the Ground Up. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Levine, A. (1997). How the academic profession is changing. Daedalus, 26, (4) 1-20.

Petty, R. and Cacioppo, J. (1986). Communication and Persuasion. New York: Springer Verlag.

Roueche,  Roueche,  and Milliron,  (1996a). Identification of strangers. Community College Review, 23, (4), 33-48.

Roueche,  Roueche,  and Milliron,  (1996b). In the company of strangers.  Community College Journal of Research and Parctice, 20, (2), 105-116.

Roueche,  Roueche,  and Milliron,  (1995). Strangers in their Own Land. Washington DC: Community College Press.

Roueche,  Roueche,  and Milliron,  (1994). 1001 Exemplary Practices. New York: McGraw Hill.

Schuster, J. (1998). Reconfiguring the professorate: an overview. Academe, 84, (2), 49-53.

Styne, M. (1997). The unfamiliar names and faces: the hiring, managing and evaluation of part-time faculty.  Teaching English in the Two Year College, 24, (Fall), 49-62.

Watt, J. and VanLear, C. (1996). Dynamic Patterns in Communications Processes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.