Thu, May 2, 2024
[Archive]
Volume 4, Issue 3 (SEPTEMBER ISSUE 2023)
johepal 2023, 4(3): 75-95 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Malone Jr. D E, Johnson B C. (2023). Pressure to Please: Adjunct Faculty Experiences with Grade Inflation. johepal. 4(3), 75-95. doi:10.61186/johepal.4.3.75
URL: http://johepal.com/article-1-443-en.html
URL: http://johepal.com/article-1-443-en.html
Abstract: (706 Views)
This research explores adjunct faculty experiences navigating student and institutional pressures and lack of training regarding grade inflation. Given the increasing use of non-tenure-track faculty in higher education, there is a need to understand the experiences of adjunct faculty. Utilizing phenomenological methodology, twenty-three adjunct faculty members across the United States detail the challenges from the administration, students, parents, and even themselves when the issue of students’ satisfaction with grades. Agency theory is a theoretical framework used to analyze the various pressures to help understand the relationship between adjunct faculty and their respective institutions. Data collected pointed to various types of pressures and responses to those pressures by the participants. Participants demonstrate agency when it comes to grade contestation but also express concern over reprimand and/or future employment. Findings suggest adjunct faculty need more training and support from their administration to ensure grade inflation pressures are not felt by adjunct faculty.
Keywords: Adjunct Faculty, Grade Inflation, Agency Theory, Higher Education, Training, Phenomenology
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Special
Received: 2023/04/27 | Accepted: 2023/09/12 | Published: 2023/09/30
Received: 2023/04/27 | Accepted: 2023/09/12 | Published: 2023/09/30
References
1. American Association of University Professors. (2018). Data snapshot: Contingent faculty in US higher ed. [Article]
2. Ashworth, P. D. (2016). The lifeworld – enriching qualitative evidence. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 13(1), 20-32. [DOI]
3. Babcock, P. (2010). Real costs of nominal grade inflation? New evidence from student course evaluations. Economic Inquiry, 48(4), 983-996. [DOI]
4. Barnes, N. (2014). Using Facebook for educational research: Choice, trials, reflection, and insight. Paper presented at the Joint AARE-NZARE 2014 Conference (pp. 1-8). [Article]
5. Battistella, E., Kalyan, S., & Prior, J. C. (2010). Evaluation of methods and costs associated with recruiting healthy women volunteers to a study of ovulation. Journal of Women’s Health, 19(8), 1-6. [DOI]
6. Blum, D. (2017). Nine potential solutions to abate grade inflation at regionally accredited online U.S. universities: An intrinsic case study. The Qualitative Report, 22(9), 2288-2311. [DOI]
7. Burns, D. J., Smith, Y., & Starcher, K. (2015). Adjuncts and mission: Maintaining distinctives in an era of part-time faculty. Christian Business Academy Review, 10, 63-76. [Article]
8. Carter, N., Bryant-Lukosius, D., DiCenso, A., Blythe, J., & Neville, A. J. (2014). The use of triangulation in qualitative research. Oncology Nursing Forum, 41(5), 545-547. [DOI]
9. Caruth, G. D., & Caruth, D. L. (2013). Adjunct faculty: Who are these unsung heroes of academe? Current Issues in Education, 16(3). [Article]
10. Chowdhury, F. (2018). Grade inflation: Causes, consequences and cure. Journal of Education and Learning, 7(6), 86-92. [DOI]
11. Colaizzi, P. F. (1978). Psychological research as the phenomenologist views it. In R. S. Valle, & M. King (Eds.), Existential-Phenomenological Alternatives for Psychology (pp. 48-71). Oxford University Press.
12. Collins, D. (2020). The other academic dishonesty: Why grade inflation is ethically wrong. The Canadian Society for Study of Practical Ethics / Société Canadienne Pour L'étude De L'éthique Appliquée—SCEEA, 4, 1-24. [Article]
13. Crumbley, D. L., Flinn, R., & Reichelt, K. J. (2012). Unethical and deadly symbiosis in higher education. Accounting Education, 21(3), 307-318. [DOI]
14. Dolan, V. L. B. (2011). The isolation of online adjunct faculty and its impact on their performance. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(2), 63-77. [DOI]
15. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory: An assessment and review. The Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 57-74. [DOI]
16. Finefter-Rosenbluh, I., & Levinson, M. (2015). What is wrong with grade inflation (if anything)? Philosophical Inquiry in Education, 23(1), 3-21. [Article]
17. Forbes, M. O., Hickey, M. T., & White, J. (2010). Adjunct faculty development: Reported needs and innovative solutions. Journal of Professional Nursing, 26(2), 116-124. [DOI]
18. Fruscione, J. (2014, July 25). When a college contracts ‘adjunctivitis,’ it’s the students who lose. PBS. [Article]
19. Halcrow, C., & Olson, M. R. (2008). Adjunct faculty: Valued asset or cheap labor? Focus on Colleges, Universities, and Schools, 2(1), 1-8. [Article]
20. Hensley, B. O. (2016). Adjunct faculty in a neoliberal age: The power of critical stories. [Unpublished dissertation] Illinois State University.
21. Hermanowicz, J. C., & Woodring, D. W. (2019). The distribution of college grades across fields in the contemporary university. Innovative Higher Education, 44(6), 497-510. [DOI]
22. Hesseln, H., & Jackson, D. (2000). Academic inflation: the devaluation of a universıty degree. In M. R. Ryan & W. B. Kurtz (Eds.), Proceedings of the Third Biennial Conference on University Education in Natural Resources (pp. 112-127). Curators of the University of Missouri. [Article]
23. Iris Franz, W. (2010). Grade inflation under the threat of students’ nuisance: Theory and evidence. Economics of Education Review, 29(3), 411-422. [DOI]
24. Jenkins, R. (2014, December 15). Straight talk about ’adjunctification’. The Chronicle of Higher Education. [Article]
25. Johnson, B. C., & Malone Jr, D. E. (2023). Not me, not here: Adjunct faculty perceptions of grade inflation at U.S. colleges and universities. American Journal of Qualitative Research, 7(2), 147-162. [DOI]
26. Juola, A. E. (1976). Grade inflation in higher education: What can or should we do? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of National Council on Measurement in Education, San Francisco, CA. [Article]
27. Kezar, A. (2013). Changing faculty workforce models. TIAA-CREF Institute. [Article]
28. 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 Educational Leadership Journal, 13(2), 73-81. [Article]
29. Klafter, C. E. (2019). Good grieve! America’s grade inflation culture. Academic Questions, 32(3), 328-333. [Article]
30. Kostal, J. W., Kuncel, N. R., & Sackett, P. R. (2016). Grade inflation marches on: Grade increases from the 1990s to 2000s. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 35(1), 11-20. [DOI]
31. Lackey, L. W., & Lackey, W. J. (2006). Grade inflation: Potential causes and solutions. International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(1), 130-139. [Article]
32. Mack, N., Woodsong, C., MacQueen, K. M., Guest, G., & Namey, E. (2005). Qualitative Research Methods: A Data Collector’s Field Guide. Family Health International. [Article]
33. Mantzoukas, S. (2008). Facilitating research students in formulating qualitative research questions. Nurse Education Today, 28(3), 371-377. [DOI]
34. McCabe, J., & Powell, B. (2004). “In my class? No.”: Professors’ accounts of grade inflation. In W. E. Becker & M. L. Andrews (Eds.), The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: Contributions of Research Universities (pp. 193-219). Indiana University Press.
35. McConnell-Henry, T., Chapman, Y. B., & Francis, K. L. (2009). Unpacking Heideggerian phenomenology. Southern Online Journal of Nursing Research, 9(1), 1-11.
36. Merleau-Ponty, M. (2012). Phenomenology of Perception. Routledge.
37. Miller, G. J. (2005). The political evolution of principal-agent models. Annual Review of Political Science, 8(1), 203-225. [DOI]
38. Mitchell, R., & Meacheam, D. (2011). Knowledge worker control: Understanding via principal and agency theory. The Learning Organization, 18(2), 149-160. [DOI]
39. Mitnick, B. M. (1998). Agency theory. In R.E. Freeman and P.H. Werhane (Eds.) The Blackwell Encyclopedic Dictionary of Business Ethics, (pp. 12–15). Wiley-Blackwell.
40. Moore, M., & Trahan, R. (1998). Tenure status and grading practices. Sociological Perspectives, 41(4), 775-781. [DOI]
41. 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. [DOI]
42. Novick, G. (2008). Is there a bias against telephone Interviews in qualitative research? Research in Nursing & Health, 31(4), 391-398. [DOI]
43. Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1-13. [DOI]
44. Oltmann, S. M. (2016). Qualitative interviews: A methodological discussion of the interviewer and respondent contexts. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 17(2), Article 15. [DOI]
45. Piscitello, V. J. (2006). Adjunct faculty: Branding ourselves in the new economy (Publication No. 137356671) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona]. University of Arizona. [Article]
46. Qu, S. Q., & Dumay, J. (2011). The qualitative research interview. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 8(3), 238-264. [DOI]
47. Schacter, D. L. (1999). The seven sins of memory: Insights from psychology and cognitive neuroscience. American Psychologist, 54(3), 182-203. [DOI]
48. Schell, E. E., & Armour-Hileman, V. (2015). The new faculty majority: Changing conditions and a changing scholarly publication environment. In L. Guglielmo & L. L. Gaillet (Eds.), Contingent Faculty Publishing in Community: Case Studies for Successful Collaborations (pp. 1-19). Palgrave Macmillan. [DOI]
49. Schutz, K. R. (2012). A comparison of community college full-time and adjunct faculties’ perceptions of factors associated with grade inflation (Publication No. 3541624). [Doctoral Dissertation, Capella University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. [Article]
50. 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.
51. Schutz, K. R., Drake, B. M., Lessner, J., & Hughes, G. F. (2015). A comparison of community college full-time and adjunct faculties’ perceptions of factors associated with grade inflation. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 63(3), 180-192. [DOI]
52. Shapiro, S. P. (2005). Agency theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 31(1), 263-284. [DOI]
53. Shi, Z. (2011). Dilemmas in using phenomenology to investigate elementary school children learning English as a second language. In Education, 17(1), 3-13. [DOI]
54. Sonner, B. S. (2000). A is for “adjunct”: Examining grade inflation in higher education. Journal of Education for Business, 76(1), 5-8. [DOI]
55. Stuckey, H. L. (2015). The second step in data analysis: Coding qualitative research data. Journal of Social Health and Diabetes, 3(1), 7-10. [DOI]
56. Sturges, J. E., & Hanrahan, K. J. (2004). Comparing telephone and face-to-face qualitative interviewing: A research note. Qualitative Research, 4(1), 107-118. [DOI]
57. Teherani, A., Martimianakis, T., Stenford-Hayes, T., Wadhwa, A., & Varpio, L. (2015). Choosing a qualitative research approach. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 7(4), 669-670. [DOI]
58. The Hanover Insurance Group. (2023). Don’t be held “captive” by non-independent insurance agents. [Article]
59. Theofanidis, D., & Fountouki, A. (2018). Limitations and delimitations in the research process. Perioperative Nursing, 7(3), 155-164. [DOI]
60. Tuckett, A. (2005). Part II. rigour in qualitative research: Complexities and solutions. Nurse Researcher, 13(1), 29-42. [DOI]
61. Umbach, P. D. (2007). How effective are they? Exploring the impact of contingent faculty on undergraduate education. The Review of Higher Education, 30(2), 91-123. [DOI]
62. Wasley, P., & Bartlett, T. (2008, September 05). Just say ’A’: Grade inflation undergoes reality check. The Chronicle of Higher Education. [DOI]
63. Webb, Jr., D. E. (2007). Adjunct faculty: A boon or burden (Publication No. 338) [Doctoral dissertation, Mississippi State University]. Theses and Dissertations. [Article]
64. Winzer, M. (2002). Grade inflation: An appraisal of the research. [Article]
65. Wongsurawat, W. (2009). Does grade inflation affect the credibility of grades? Evidence from US law school admissions. Education Economics, 17(4), 523-534. [DOI]
66. Yakoboski, P. J. (2014). Exploring emerging new faculty workforce models. A TIAA-CREF Institute Fellows Symposium. [DOI]
67. Yakoboski, P. J. (2016). Adjunct views of adjunct positions. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 48(3), 54-59. [DOI]
68. Yang, H., & Yip, C. S. (2003). An economic theory of grade inflation. [Article]
69. Zimmerman, A. (2002). Reduced rigor and grade inflation diminish the quality and credibility of higher education. NACTA Journal, 46(4), 49-51. [Article]
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
