Full-time teaching-focused faculty at research universities may hold alternative titles such as Assistant Teaching Professor, Instructor, or Lecturer. We manipulated the title of a fictitious faculty target to investigate how such titles are perceived. Student and lay respondents (N = 317) respected and liked all targets, and their ratings did not differ depending on title. Faculty respondents (N = 645) also liked and respected all the targets but predicted that Associate Teaching Professors, compared to Associate Professors, would be paid less and would be less likely to have tenure, hold the PhD, or be respected outside their university. Lecturer and Instructor titles were estimated to be even lower in status. We discuss what our data indicate about the status of teaching in academia.
BaldwinR. G.ChronisterJ. L. (2001). Teaching without tenure: Policies and practices for a new era. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
3.
BérubéM.RuthJ. (2015). The humanities, higher education, and academic freedom. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
4.
BoyerE. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Stanford, CA: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
5.
BoyerE. L.MoserD.ReamT. C.BraxtonJ. M. (2016). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate (Expanded edition). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
CuddyA. J. C.FiskeS. T.GlickP. (2007). The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 631–648. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.4.631
8.
CummingsW. K.FinkelsteinM. (2012). Scholars in the changing American academy: New contexts, new rules and new roles. Philadelphia, PA: Springer.
9.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J. C.GlickP.XuJ. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878
10.
FiskeS. T.DupreeC. (2014). Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111, 13593–13597. doi:10.1073/pnas.1317505111
11.
FraleyR. C.VazireS. (2014). The N-Pact factor: Evaluating the quality of empirical journals with respect to sample size and statistical power. PLoS One, 9, e109019. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0109019
12.
GappaJ. M.LeslieD. W. (1993). The invisible faculty: Improving the status of part-timers in higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
HollensheadC.WaltmanJ.AugustJ.SmithG.BellA. (2007). Making the best of both worlds: Findings from a national institution-level survey on non-tenure track faculty. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Center for the Education of Women.
15.
KezarA.DepaolaT.ScottD. T. (2019). The gig academy: Mapping labor in the neoliberal university. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
16.
KezarA.GehrkeS.MaxeyD. (2014). Unbundling versus designing faculty roles. Washington, DC: American Council on Education Presidential Innovation Lab.
17.
KezarA.MaxeyD. (2016). Recognizing the need for a new faculty model. In KezarA.MaxeyD. (Eds.), Envisioning the faculty for the twenty-first century: Moving to a mission-oriented and learner-centered model (pp. 23–41). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
18.
KezarA.SamC. (2010a). Understanding the new majority of non-tenure-track faculty in higher education: Demographics, experiences, and plans of action. Association for the Study in Higher Education Report, 36(4). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
19.
KezarA.SamC. (2010b). Beyond contracts: Non-tenure track faculty and campus governance. The NEA 2010 almanac of higher education (pp. 83–91). Washington, DC: National Education Association.
20.
KezarA.SamC. (2011). Understanding non-tenure track faculty: New assumptions and theories for conceptualizing behavior. American Behavioral Scientist, 55, 1419–1442. doi:10.1177/0002764211408879
21.
MonksJ. (2004). The relative earnings of contingent faculty in higher education (CHERI Working Paper No. 59). Retrieved fromCornell University, ILR School site: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cheri/22/
22.
MorlingB.LeeJ. M. (2019). Lay perceptions of faculty titles. Unpublished manuscript. Accessible on the open science framework. Retrieved fromhttps://osf.io/ptvg4/
23.
MorlingB.LeeJ. M. (2020). Undergraduates at a research university think of faculty as teachers and that teaching is prestigious. Teaching of Psychology, 47, 34–44.
24.
OttM.CisnerosJ. (2015). Understanding the changing faculty workforce in higher education: A comparison of full-time non-tenure track and tenure line experiences. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23, doi:10.14507/epaa.v23.1934
RawnC. D.FoxJ. A. (2017). Understanding the work and perceptions of teaching focused faculty in a changing academic landscape. Research in Higher Education, 59, 591–622. doi:10.1007/s11162-017-9479-6
27.
ShaversF. L. (2000). Academic ranks and titles of full-time nontenure-track faculty. In TrowerC. A. (Ed.), Policies on faculty appointment: Standard practices and unusual arrangements (pp. 110–140). Bolton, MA: Anker.
28.
TeichlerU.ArimotoA.CummingsW. K. (2013). The changing academic profession: Major findings of a comparative survey. Philadelphia, PA: Springer.
29.
ThedwallK. (2008). Nontenure-track faculty: Rising numbers, lost opportunities. New Directions in Higher Education, 143, 11–19.
