RUNNING HEAD: Title - WordPress.com€¦ · Web viewCollaboration and Action: A Grassroots...
Click here to load reader
Transcript of RUNNING HEAD: Title - WordPress.com€¦ · Web viewCollaboration and Action: A Grassroots...
Running Head: COLLABORATION AND ACTION 1
Collaboration and Action:
A Grassroots Approach to Promoting Leadership in Part-Time Faculty
Megan H.L. Tucker
CTCH 792
May 2, 2011
COLLABORATION AND ACTION 2
Collaboration and Action from the Ground-Up:
A Grassroots Approach to Promoting Leadership in Part-Time Faculty
Part-time and adjunct faculty populations have grown exponentially at the
community college, as well as state and private university levels (American Association of
University Professors, 2004; Zeigler & Reiff, 2006). Despite this increase, decades of
research suggests that the role of part-time faculty has been overlooked in academia (Biles
& Tuchman, 1986; Mathis, 1979 as cited in German, 2002). With this increasing populace
comes a new set of issues. It is not uncommon for part-time faculty to have limited to no
access to office space, printing capabilities, office supplies, computers or even training
resources (Peterson, 2008). However in some instances, part-timers teach the same number
of classes as full-time faculty, but are paid substantially less (Johnson, MacGregor &
Watson, 2001). Likewise, part-time faculty may be underrepresented or not represented at
all in faculty senates or meetings. Due to the lack of resources, financial support and
guarantee of position beyond semester contracts, there is a definite need for adjunct leaders
to promote change both externally in their departments, as well as from within their
cohorts of fellow part-timers.
Some research has started to emerge addressing the need for more concrete
leadership to represent the part-time group (Kezar & Lester, 2009). For the purpose of this
paper, leadership is defined as “a process whereby influence prompts a group of
individuals to achieve a common goal” (Northouse, 2007, p.3). Also, part-time faculty is
defined as adjunct faculty, non-tenure track guest lecturers and graduate teaching assistants
at community colleges as well as state and private institutions (Ziegler & Reiff, 2006).
COLLABORATION AND ACTION 3
The part-time faculty member has often been viewed as an outcast within higher
education (Johnson, MacGregor & Watson, 2001). The lack of inclusion in campus and
department-related activities, as well as the inadequate training and direction of these
instructors has left them as secondary employees in their fields (Ballantyne, Berret &
Harst, 2009; Johnson, MacGregor & Watson, 2001; Schuster & Finkelstein, 2006).
Because of these shortcomings and challenges there are some feelings of apprehension
about the quality of work that adjuncts produce (Milliken & Jurgens, 2008). While this
certainly may not be the case, that is a perception of this group. Thus, how can faculty
leadership be reevaluated to assist in improving conditions for and perceptions of part-
timers?
Literature Review
This paper offers recommendations to further the advancement of leadership
studies from a grassroots perspective in an attempt to reduce the seemingly insoluble
challenges that part-time faculty members in higher education face. These
recommendations are introduced as ways to break down physical, social, financial and
instructional barriers that part-time faculty members’ experience. The basis of the
arguments made are founded in literature that focuses on the common issues that part-time
faculty face, complexity theory as it pertains to leadership, as well as grassroots
movements within and outside of higher education.
Adjunct/Part-Time Faculty Challenges
Literature on adjunct/part-time faculty has often focused on the hardships these
instructors endure and the limitations they face (Ballantyne, Berret, & Harst, 2009;
Edmonson & Fisher, 2003; Johnson, MacGregor, & Watson, 2001; Pfefferle, 1999). As
COLLABORATION AND ACTION 4
Johnson et al (2001) notes that part-time professors are faced with a large lack of
communication between themselves and their departments, as well as less bonding with
full-time colleagues. Research has investigated the experiences of adjunct instructors in general
(Milliken & Jurgens, 2008; Quinn, 2005; Smith, 2003). In one study of 77 adjunct
faculty members, Quinn (2005) found that adjuncts did not experience institutional belongingness
and were isolated within the constraints of their job categorization. Likewise, adjunct faculty were
not encouraged to participate in career development activities and were not entitled to annual
funding. These results indicate that many adjunct instructors feel undervalued and ill supported.
The issue then becomes how to integrate part-timers and full-timers, empower the part-
time faculty to become leaders in their own right, and create a more inclusive space within
their departments.
Charfauros and Tierney’s (1999) study produced a model that emphasizes the
integration of part-time faculty into their departments and institutions, equitable
compensation, a formalized teaching evaluation system, broader teaching opportunities
and, finally, enhanced job security. Their research posits that improving part-time faculty
work conditions will enhance overall effectiveness of that institution (Schuster, 1998 as
cited in Charfauros & Tierney, 1999). Likewise, Rogers, McIntyre and Jazzar’s (2009)
study of online adjunct faculty found four elements that are central to success: professional
development, effective communication, fostering balance, and creating relationships.
Other research has also acknowledged the need to integrate part-time faculty as
active members of their departments (Kamps, 1996). Kamps suggests that departments
reach out to their adjunct populations and engage them in programs and orientations for
training (1996). At the most basic level, research has suggested simple acknowledgement
COLLABORATION AND ACTION 5
that part-time faculty are doing their jobs well, and are vital contributors to the success of
college programs (Edmonson & Fisher, 2003). Charfauros and Tierney (1999) found that
many adjunct faculty consider themselves second-class citizens. The source of these
feelings are found in how part-timers’ experience and competencies are not included in
determining salary (Tuckman & Caldwell, 1979 as cited in Charfauros & Tierney, 1999).
These suggestions may prove beneficial, but only if department chairs and tenured faculty
are willing to allow for flexibility. However, part-time faculty must also be able to battle
the leadership challenges that they face.
A comparative trend in research has begun to emerge between full-time faculty
members and their part-time counterparts (Ballantyne, Berret & Harst, 2009; Schuetz,
2002). Schuetz (2002) used a faculty survey to hypothesize how part-time and full-time
faculty work and behave similarly or differently, and what influence that has on the
effectiveness of student learning. Schuetz found that while part-timers are just as likely as
full-timers to spend time interacting with students, the part-timers felt isolated from fellow
faculty members and department heads (2002). These findings are consistent with the
“outsider” mentality that many part-time faculty members have within their institutions
(Charfauros and Tierney, 1999; Johnson et al, 2001). Ballantyne et al (2009) sought to
gauge the perception of full-time faculty regarding leadership qualities and capabilities of
adjuncts. The authors found that there is little encouragement from the administration or
full-time faculty to include adjuncts. An attitudinal change is suggested for full-time and
administrators in order to meet adjunct faculty needs and to offer them greater
representation at meetings or on faculty councils (Ballantyne et al, 2009). The need for
part-time faculty representation among their full-time co-workers also suggests a call for
COLLABORATION AND ACTION 6
for leadership and a greater sense of community among part-time instructors. This may
occur formally in faculty meetings or councils, or informally within the department at a
social level.
Complexity Theory
As some of the more traditional theories of leadership become dated, newer and
more multi-dimensional approaches have emerged. Complexity leadership theory explores
the emergence of leadership through dynamic interactions among group members, and a
shared leadership experience (Bradbury & Lichtenstein, 2000; Lichtenstein, Uhl-Bien,
Marion, Seers, Orton & Schreiber, 2006). Lichtenstein et al (2006) focuses on the ever
expanding locus of leadership across a social system, as well as micro-strategic actions and
influential behaviors of the collective. Morrison (2002) notes complexity theory is about
survival, development and the ability to adapt. The complexity perspective offers a change
in the paradigms of our thinking about research on education: away from input–output
causal models to modeling specific interconnections of persons and practices (Mason,
2008). Likewise, Mason states that this theory recognizes the need for coordinated changes
throughout the system and its resources (2008).
Complexity theory shares some of chaos theory’s concern with wholes, larger
systems or environments and the relationships among their constituents (Mason, 2008;
Smitherman, 2006). According to Smitherman (2006) complexity theory offers a discourse
of connectivity and potentiality through non-linear patterns. Mason (2008) notes that
complexity theory emphasizes non-linear, dynamic interactions between multiple sources
which supports connectionist and holistic analysis. Using the complex adaptive system
(CAS) leadership is defined by interactions among agents and across networks instead of
COLLABORATION AND ACTION 7
through a hierarchy (Marion, 1999). Based in this complex adaptive system is the
perspective that leadership is distributed because of the interactive dynamic (Gronn, 2002).
Lichtenstein et al (2006) notes that complexity theory encourages each member of the
group to become a leader, and to seek information from others within the group before
making decisions. Likewise, a strategy of complexity theory is to use tension as a means to
create change in the group (Lichtenstein et al, 2006). The introduction of these tensions are
meant to spark transformational changes without creating panic among group members
(Goldstein, 1994). Therefore, using complexity theory in leadership is a dynamic process
of emergence among the group and is not intended for a solitary positional leader. This
theory also depends on interpretive perspectives and approaches which may add a
dimension of interdisciplinary study (Mason, 2008).
Complexity theory can address issues surrounding the genesis of a new leadership
structure from a grassroots perspective. Complexity theory posits that certain interactions
in a social network will have a nonlinear influence within that network (Lichtenstein et al.,
2006). As such, leadership works at what Lichtenstein et al. calls the “field” level (2006).
The field level essentially is likened to a web of interaction and reach among all members
simultaneously, unlike a hierarchical, top-down leadership communication. This field level
interaction occurs on the same plane among and throughout that particular social network
(Chiles et al., 2004 as cited in Lichtenstein et al., 2006). In the context of this paper,
complexity theory can begin to address how to develop a grassroots leadership movement
among part-time instructional faculty in higher education.
Grassroots Leadership Initiatives
COLLABORATION AND ACTION 8
The leadership dynamic on college campuses is in a state of flux. Whereas
traditional leadership in higher education has been top-down and focused on those in
positions of authority, some ground-up grassroots initiatives have emerged (Kezar &
Lester, 2009). Research has expressed concern the potential decline of grassroots
leadership efforts (Schuster & Finkelstein, 2006). Fewer studies have been published on
grassroots leadership efforts in the context of higher education; however, the existing
literature is often limited to a sole initiative at a specific institution (Kezar & Lester, 2009).
The existing grassroots initiatives consist of more informal interactions that work from the
ground-up, and have the potential to influence larger groups (Schuster & Finkelstein,
2006).
Kezar and Lester (2009) highlight the barriers to faculty leadership including
increases in workload, less engagement with their departments and fewer leadership
opportunities being presented to faculty. Likewise, Thomas and Willcoxson’s (1998) study
of teaching development and change found that a grassroots initiative can be sustained
over time if there are established positive behaviors, recognition and support among the
group. The authors also note that a grassroots movement should not be an aggressive
revolution, but rather a refocusing and rebalancing of teaching needs and priorities for the
organization (Thomas & Willcoxson, 1998). Grimshaw’s (1982) training model for
grassroots leadership is an early study on the positive relationship between quality
community building and quality leadership within the group. The model states that if the
community leader understands the community needs, external resources, learning
processes and interpersonal requirements then all individuals in the group will benefit
(Grimshaw, 1982). Based on the research, there is a blatant need for grassroots leadership
COLLABORATION AND ACTION 9
initiatives among part-time faculty members in order to address engagement and inclusion
issues pertinent to these instructors (Grimshaw, 1982; Kezar & Lester, 2009; Thomas &
Willcoxson, 1998).
Part of the grassroots leadership research focuses on the experiences of “tempered
radicals” (Kezar & Lester, In Press; Meyerson, 2003). Meyerson (2003) notes that
tempered radicals are insiders in an organization who are successful in their jobs, however,
they are often treated as outsiders. Adjuncts may be considered tempered radicals in that
they share the need to fit into the dominant culture, but aspire to ignite change within their
organizations (Meyerson, 2003). As Kezar and Lester (In Press) note, these tempered
radicals seek to make positive changes in their organizations but they lack formal authority
to do so. Adjuncts as tempered radicals must find a balance in their strategies to stay
employed and reduce resistance while creating the changes they support (Kezar and Lester,
In Press). This framework moves away from individual strategies and solitary charismatic
leadership, to a collective grassroots strategy that begins with the individual and moves
outward (Kezar and Lester, In Press; Meyerson, 2003).
Other grassroots research on task-related groups focus on decision-making outside
of a higher education context (Boehm & Staples, 2006; Hammonds, 2000). Boehm and
Staples (2006) found that grassroots leaders have varying experiences and opinions on
paths to becoming a leader, the development process and action patterns. Furthermore, the
authors found shared attitudes about developmental and interactional patterns of grassroots
leaders, but differences in the approach (Boehm & Staples, 2006). Thus, grassroots
leaders’ goals and guiding principles may be shared among groups. Similarly, teaching and
guidance is central to grassroots leadership program. Hammonds’ ideology behind Ford
COLLABORATION AND ACTION 10
Motor Company’s grassroots leader development is that the leaders will learn as they teach
and promote task development (2000). Based in this research, the need for part-time
faculty to start a grassroots leadership movement should begin with the understanding of
shared responsibility in leading, and fluidity of interaction among their groups.
Using complexity theory as the theoretical frame, this paper offers opportunities for
part-time faculty members to partake in using a grassroots approach in order to bolster
leadership and address a number of long-term issues that these academics face. Research
stemming from this paper could lead to the creation of a model addressing leadership
challenges within higher education systems, or practical applications for college
departments and their part-time faculty to consider increasing assimilation into their
programs.
Recommendations
Based on the literature and theoretical frame, a few recommendations for part-time
faculty can be made to increase assimilation. Using a grassroots approach, adjunct faculty
members should communicate openly with their departments and colleges about their
needs not being met. A variety of barriers including physical, social, financial and
instructional, have often prevented part-time faculty from feeling included and integrated
into their departments. As such, support systems should be created to break these various
barriers. As Kezar and Lester posit (In Press), faculty can support one another via coalition
building and networking. Along with these social connections, both formal and informal
initiatives may also be used by the institution to enhance these grassroots efforts. The
following are recommendations to reducing each of these barriers using complexity theory
and grassroots approaches to leadership.
COLLABORATION AND ACTION 11
Physical Barriers
For adjunct faculty, the physical barriers they face have an effect on both their
connectedness to the department, as well as their students. As previously mentioned many
part-time faculty members do not have access to their own office space, or even a
communal space from which to work (Johnson, MacGregor & Watson, 2001). This leaves
many faculty with the issue of finding space to meet with students for office hours, or
simply a quiet place to work. While some may utilize the availability in campus libraries,
coffee shops or student centers, this still causes a physical barrier to form, blocking them
from their own departments.
One way to break this barrier is to approach department heads and university
services about creating a shared office space on campus for part-time faculty, preferably
within their departments’ buildings. While it may not be feasible for each adjunct to have
his or her own private office space, it would be manageable for adjunct faculty to work
together in a shared space with multiple desks and dividers for some privacy. Adjuncts
could discuss possible space allocations with their department heads and their college
within the university. As campuses expand with student influx, so does the need for more
physical space. These expansions are prime opportunity for part-timers to request a small
space allotment for office use.
Granted, many schools face a lace of space availability and funding for such an
effort. As such, part-timers could reserve conference room space or study rooms for brief
periods of time each week. This does not incur any greater cost to the department and
opens a space within the building for adjuncts to use. This does put a time restriction on
the use of this space, however, if a group of adjuncts have similar office hours, then they
COLLABORATION AND ACTION 12
may be able to coordinate the space availability. As Morrison (2002) states complexity
theory is about development and the ability to adapt. Thus, if a larger space is not
available for permanent use, groups of adjuncts can reserve these public department spaces
on a weekly basis to establish some residency in their department buildings.
Social Barriers
Physical barriers often lead to a lack of socialization between full-time faculty and
staff and part-time faculty in that adjuncts are not often seen in the department buildings
for lack of space. This prevention of socialization further isolates the part-timers from their
co-workers. Thus, a way to break social barriers is to formally or informally include part-
time faculty in department events or decisions. Using complexity theory, successful
leadership is defined by interactions among agents and across networks instead of through
a hierarchy (Marion, 1999). As such, department chairs and full-time faculty should
increase opportunities for socialization by including adjuncts in department social events.
When departments host developmental workshops or faculty meetings, adjuncts
should be openly invited to be involved. Perhaps because of the transient nature of many
adjuncts’ work situations, departments may feel that they would not wish to be involved in
workshops or meetings. However, it is up to the adjuncts to fix this communication
breakdown by voicing their interest in involvement and inclusion in departmental
activities. Becoming more visible and active in their departments may begin to alleviate the
concerns that adjuncts are not meeting standards for quality teaching.
Financial Barriers
One of the hardest barriers to break is that of financial needs of adjuncts. The
average adjunct faculty is paid substantially less than the average full time or tenured
COLLABORATION AND ACTION 13
faculty member (Rollins, 2008). While it is reasonable for a larger salary increase for full-
time, the adjunct pay scale is often so low that these faculty seek other jobs at various
institutions to meet basic needs.
Apart from compensation woes, adjuncts also face financial barriers in the form of
lacking benefits or access to supplies. It is uncommon for part-time faculty to receive any
insurance benefits, or even parking repayment (Rollins, 2008). Along with a lower pay
scale, adjuncts also have to contend with finding external resources to cover these
expenses. So instead of simply accepting the low pay per credit hour, adjuncts could
demand change through their departments and the university. Adjunct salary should far
surpass minimum wage for the number of hours devoted in teaching and preparation for
each course. Therefore, adjuncts may seek out unions or formalize groups in order to
approach their university about the opportunity for a pay increase.
Although salary increases are rare, especially in a downtrodden economy, it would
be conducive to offer certain financial perks to part-timers. This could come in the form of
a parking price deduction, offering insurance options for adjuncts, covering printing costs,
or granting greater faculty discounts for food or office supplies purchased on campus. As
Meyerson (2003) notes, tempered radicals feel secondary in their organizations, adjuncts
struggle with the same outlook in their lack of financial stability and sufficient payment for
services rendered.
Instructional Barriers
Finally, there are many instructional barriers that part-timers face including
preparation time, training, workshop availability or shared resources. As previously
mentioned, there is some concern with the level of education that students receive from
COLLABORATION AND ACTION 14
adjunct faculty due to the lack of training and preparation (Milliken & Jurgens, 2008).
Ziegler and Reiff (2006) suggest offering mentoring programs to adjunct faculty in order to
orient them to their departments and help them establish effective teaching practices over
time. The authors suggest the implementation of these orientations for the following
reasons: (a) to emphasize the academic integrity of the course and program; (b) support
effective teaching and (c) sustain professional collaboration between the mentor and
mentee while continuing to attend to immediate concerns around policies and procedures
(Ziegler & Reiff, 2006). These suggestions may prove beneficial in a pre-semester seminar
or course orientation which can be given the week prior to the beginning of the semester in
spring or fall. These orientations could provide chapter outlines and syllabus templates for
the textbooks in a given course which would offer a great deal of help to part-timers who
are often hired to take a class with little notice prior to the start of a semester.
Aside from overall department mentorships and training programs, forming an
adjunct faculty workshop series may also prove to be beneficial. These workshop groups
could formally or informally meet and discuss best teaching practices, ideal meeting
locations for office hours, classroom materials, and offer more socialization among
adjuncts. As Thomas and Willcoxson (1998) stated, a grassroots movement should not be
aggressive. These department mentorship programs and adjunct workshops are an
unobtrusive way of refocusing and rebalancing their teaching needs (Thomas &
Willcoxson, 2008). With greater emphasis on professional development and shared
teaching techniques; these adjuncts are much more likely to be viewed as successful,
qualified instructors who share greater cohesion.
COLLABORATION AND ACTION 15
These recommendations only begin to address a number of challenges that adjunct
faculty face. While many changes in the university system would require funding that may
or may not be available, some of these basic considerations are cost-effective and easily
adaptable. The key to breaking these barriers is for adjunct faculty to take initiative to start
these training sessions or workshops for their fellow employees. They should seek out
allies within their departments to assist in gaining accessibility to office space or supplies.
Part-timers should also vocalize the need for financial stability and benefits which would
make the transitory nature of their jobs lessen to the point of permanence in one
department at one university or community college. These changes could provide the
university with a better trained, constant group of employees who may be much more
motivated and dedicated to contributing to their departments. It would also provide the
adjuncts with the steadiness they desire and the allowance for more focus on a singular job
appointment, faculty socialization at one campus, and greater concentration on their groups
of students.
Grassroots leadership starts from the bottom up, so without ambition from the part-
time faculty, they will not see the change they desire. Complexity theory posits that groups
working together as a system will achieve much greater outputs than by working
individually (Mason, 2008). A single leader is not required or even suggested for this type
of leadership movement. The current part-time faculty needs to reach out to one another to
form a cohesive group. Beyond that they should express their concerns and needs to their
department chairs, full-time faculty co-workers, and university officials both confidently
and succinctly. However, having the initial push to combine forces and help one another is
paramount to the success of a grassroots movement.
COLLABORATION AND ACTION 16
References
American Association of University Professors (2004) Contingent faculty appointments.
http://www.aaup.org/Issues/part-time/index.htm.
Ballantyne, S., Berret, B., & Harst, W. (2009). Fulltime faculty perceptions of leadership
in adjunct faculty to maintain Franciscan identity. Research in Higher Education
Journal, pp. 1-8.
Boehm, A., & Staples, L. (2006). Grassroots leadership in task-oriented groups: Learning
from successful leaders. Social Work with Groups, 28, 77-96.
Bradbury, H., & Lichtenstein, B. (2000). Relationality in organizational research:
Exploring the space between. Organizational Science, 11, 551-564.
Edmonson, S., & Fisher, A. (2003). Effective use of adjunct professors in educational
leadership. Presented at the American Association of School Administrators
Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA.
Goldstein, J. (1994). The Unshackled Organization, Portland, OR: Productivity Press.
Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unity of analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 13,
423-451.
Hammonds, K.H. (2003). Grassroots leadership: Ford motor co. Fast Company, 33, pp. 14.
Johnson, J.A, MacGregor, C.J., & Watson, R. (August, 2001). Out of sight- out of mind:
The importance of integrating adjunct faculty into an educational administration
department. Presented at National Council of Professors of Education
Administration (NCPEA), Houston, TX.
COLLABORATION AND ACTION 17
Kamps, D. (1996). Continuous quality improvement in the employment of adjunct faculty:
A NIACC plan. (ERIC Reproduction Service Number ED 392 480).
Kezar, A. & Lester, J. (In Press). Enhancing Shared Leadership: Stories and Lessons from
Grassroots Leadership in Higher Education. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Kezar, A., & Lester, J. (2009). Supporting faculty grassroots leadership. Research in
Higher Education, 50, 715-740.
Lichtenstein, B., Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., Seers, A., Orton, J.D., & Schreiber, C. (2006).
Complexity leadership theory: An interactive perspective on leading in complex
adaptive systems. Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 8, 2-12.
Marrion, R. (1999). The Edge of Organization: Chaos and Complexity Theories of Formal
Social Organization, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Mason, M. (2008). What is complexity theory and what are its implications for educational
change? Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40, 35-49.
Mason, M. (2008). Complexity theory and the philosophy of education. Educational
Philosophy and Theory, 40:1, 3-18.
Meyerson, D. (2003). Tempered Radicals: How Everyday Leaders Inspire Change at
Work. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Milliken, T. & Jurgens, J.C. (2008). Assessing the needs of human services adjunct
faculty: Uncovering strategies for retaining quality instructors. Human Service
Education, 28, 29-43.
Morrison, K. (2002). School Leadership and Complexity Theory. London and New York,
Routledge/Falmer.
COLLABORATION AND ACTION 18
Northouse, P. (2007). Leadership theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Peterson, S. (2008). Two more problems adjuncts face. The Chronicle of Higher Education
Review, 55, A30.
Quinn, S.S. (2005). The organization-based self-esteem, institutional belongingness, and
career development opportunities of adjunct faculty at a small northeastern
college. As cited in Milliken, T. & Jurgens, J.C. (2008). Assessing the needs of
human services adjunct faculty: Uncovering strategies for retaining quality
instructors. Human Service Education, 28, 29-43.
Rogers, C., McIntyre, M., & Jazzar, M. (2009). Mentoring adjunct faculty using the
cornerstones of effective communication and practice. Mentoring & Tutoring:
Partnership in Learning, 18, 53-59.
Rollins, L. (2008). A snapshot survey of adjunct compensation. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, pp.3.
Schuetz, P. (2002). Instructional practices of part-time and full-time faculty. New
Directions for Community Colleges, 118, 39-46.
Schuster, J., & Finkelstein, M. (2006). The American faculty: The restructuring of
academic work and careers. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
Smitherman, S. (2006). Chaos and complexity theories: Wholes and holes in curriculum.
Chaos, Complexity, Curriculum, and Culture: A Conversation, 6, 153-180.
Thomas, J., & Willcoxson, L. (1998). Developing teaching and changing organizational
culture through grass-roots leadership. Higher Education, 36, 471-485.
COLLABORATION AND ACTION 19
Ziegler, C.A. & Reiff, M. (2006). Adjunct mentoring, a vital responsibility in a changing
educational climate: The Lesley University Adjunct Mentoring Program.
Mentoring and Tutoring, 14, 247-269.