Outcalt, Charles. (2002). A Profile of the Community College Professorate, 1975-2000. Reviewed by John P. Murray, Texas Tech University

	Outcalt, Charles. (2002). A Profile of the Community College Professorate, 1975-2000. N.Y.: RoutledgeFalmer. pp. xv + 214 $75     ISBN 0-415-93567-9 Reviewed by John P. Murray Texas Tech University June 24, 2004 A Profile of the Community College Professorate, 1975-2000 by Charles Outcalt provides a valuable contribution to our understanding of this often maligned and misunderstood segment of higher education. Although there have been several previous noteworthy studies of community college faculty, they have suffered from some serious limitations. The studies that preceded Outcalt’s were often limited to one college, one state, or one region and often studied only one aspect of the community college faculty environment (e.g. faculty development, faculty job satisfaction, and so on). There has not been a comprehensive national study of community college faculty since Cohen and Brower’s (1977) study and even that study dealt with only Humanities faculty who were mostly full-time. Considering the considerable increase in faculty teaching in career fields and adjunct faculty a new study was long overdue. A Profile of the Community College Professorate, 1975-2000 is both a replication of and an extension of Cohen and Brower’s (1977). To provide comparisons with the Cohen and Brower (1977) study, Outcalt’s study drew “much of its method, and, importantly, survey items” from the original survey. “Approximately 75 percent of the survey questions were exact or near-exact repetitions of questions asked on the 1975 survey” (p. 41). However, because this was “not merely a replication of Cohen and Brawer’s work …. new items that [would] permit analysis not previously possible” (pp. 34-35) were added. Outcalt’s study was guided by two over-arching research questions. What are the professional practices and attitudes of the community college professorate in the year 2000? How have they changed on these measures since 1975? (p. 33) These two questions led to ten sub-questions meant to provide greater focus to the inquiry. How do faculty differ from one another in their commitment to teaching, in their expressed teaching practice? What instructional methods are used by faculty? How do these methods vary by faculty characteristics? How do respondents vary in specific measures of instructional practice, such as their use of extra-curricular activities, attentiveness to curricular revisions, and receipt of teaching awards? How do faculties differ in regard to their expressed level of satisfaction? How is involvement with the institution manifested? How does this type of involvement vary by instructor characteristic? How is professional involvement manifested by respondents? How does this type of involvement vary by instructor characteristic? For whom does the university function most strongly as a reference group? How have community college faculty changed in regard to their individual characteristics since 1975? How have community college faculty changed in their attitudes and practices since 1975? Have community college faculty developed a unified and distinct professional identity? (pp. 35-40) An invitation to participate was sent to a stratified, random sample of 478 community colleges that are members of the American Association of Community Colleges (AACC). Packets containing the survey instruments were sent to 114 community colleges that agreed to participate and distributed to 2,292 faulty members who had been randomly selected from course schedules provided by the community colleges with no more than 25 faculty being selected from a particular community college. A total of 1,531 usable surveys were returned from 109 community colleges. In order to make comparisons the sample was further divided in the several sub-groups: 1. full-time or part-time, 2. doctoral holders or non-doctoral holders, 3. doctoral seekers or non-doctoral seekers, 4. part-time and doctoral seeker or part-time and non-doctoral seeker, 5. liberal arts or non-liberal arts. The final sample was composed a 48.5% males and 48.3% females. This, as the author notes, is probably a “slight over-representation of women” (p. 6). However, in all other respects the demographics of the sample closely mirror those found at most community colleges. In this sample, the average community college professor was between 45 and 54 years of age, with ten years of experience teaching at a community college. An interesting demographic finding was that “nearly two-thirds had never taught in a secondary school” (p. 60). This suggests that community colleges have moved a considerable ways from the 1960s when they were heavily dependent on secondary schools for faculty. An interesting question, however, would be “how many community college instructors hold education degrees but have never taught in K-12”? In other words, how many individuals set out to teach in the secondary (or even primary) schools and found community college teaching more attractive? A recent qualitative study found that 40 out of 45 faculty teaching full-time at rural community colleges had education degrees and were certified at one time to teach in K-12 although many had not (Murray & Cunningham, April 23, 2004). The unanswered question is whether this is strictly a phenomenon for rural community colleges that have more difficulty recruiting faculty or true of all community colleges. The primary question that Outcalt sought to answer dealt with community college faculty’s commitment to the teaching mission of the community college. There is little doubt that community college administrators and faculty take enormous pride in placing teaching at the heart of their mission (Cohen & Brawer, 1977; DeBard, 1995; Huber, 1998; Vaughan, 2000). However, the reality behind the rhetoric has been called into question by some researchers (Grubb, 1999; O'Banion, 1994). The good news is that Outcalt found a “community college professoriate that is, by in large, highly committed to effective instructional practices” (p.75). There were some differences among the sub-groups studied by the researcher. For example, full-time faculty were more likely to team teach and to take advantage of faculty development opportunities than adjunct faculty. It appears that the possession or the pursuit of a doctorate is significantly related to the measures of effective instruction. In particular, the possession of a doctorate or pursuit of the doctorate was significantly related to the variables presented above [measures of effective instruction]. …Not having a doctorate was a negative correlate with the receipt of a teaching award, especially for part-timers, Conversely, those who were seeking the doctorate were the most likely to have received such an award. (p. 75) Although not surprising, this reviewer was somewhat disappointed that Outcalt’s findings confirmed that in 2000 community college faculty members are still using much the same pedagogical techniques that reigned supreme 25 years ago. Lecture by a solitary instructor who makes little use of either technology or alternative forms of assessing student outcomes appears to still be the norm. In contrast to the expectations created by discussion of learning communities and similar collaborative instructional practices in the literature (Grubb, 1999), joint teaching has decreased since 1975. Similarly, although the literature would lead us to believe that technology has changed classroom practice (or, at minimum, has the potential to do so), instructors are not making much more use of in-class technology for presentations than they did 25 years ago. (p. 143) Sadly, although those faculty who either held a doctorate or were seeking one tended to excel in measures of teaching effectiveness, they also lead the pack in use of lecture. One wonders, what kind of example their university professors are setting. When it comes to job satisfaction overall, the respondents appear to be quite content with their career choice. The only statistically significant difference among the various sub-groups was between full-timers and adjuncts. This is not likely to surprise those who study the community college. However, community college researchers may be surprised to note that adjuncts who are pursuing a doctorate find teaching in a community college more satisfying than those adjuncts who are not pursuing a doctorate. However, adjuncts pursuing a doctorate were also much more likely to indicate a desire to pursue careers in four-year colleges rather than community colleges. When we recall that doctoral holders and those pursuing a doctorate scored higher on the effective teaching construct, this is a troubling finding. Although “on the whole, respondents are satisfied with their positions” (p. 147), Outcalt did find some variables that contribute to higher levels of satisfaction. “The strongest correlation … was between the presence of a formal orientation program and satisfaction” (p. 84). Moreover, Outcalt, found “a link between satisfaction and involvement with one’s profession and campus” (p. 86). Upon further investigation, the data suggest that the link grows stronger the longer a faculty member stays in community college teaching. Additionally, faculty appear to take more satisfaction from involvement on their own campuses than from involvement with the profession. Outcalt, notes that “it difficult to discern causality (p. 89). Which comes first? Does involvement engender satisfaction, or does satisfaction prompt involvement? However, when Outcalt attempted “to measure the degree to which instructors were involved with the community college” (p. 91) that currently employ them, the results were confusing and somewhat contradictory. On the one hand, there were several signs that respondents were strongly oriented toward their particular campus. In terms of institutional orientation, Outcalt’s study found several statistically significant differences between sub-groups. Not surprisingly, full-timers displayed a higher level of involvement than did adjuncts. Those faculty seeking doctorates also showed a higher level of commitment than those not seeking doctorates. Furthermore, adjuncts seeking a doctorate also are more committed to their campuses than adjuncts not seeking a doctorate. “Most respondents rated several measures of instructional orientation, including their relations with colleagues, very high, and most reported that their colleagues were good sources of teaching advice” (p. 148). All of this seems to contradict the suggestion that community college faculty are growing increasingly isolated and detached from their work and colleagues (Grubb, 1999; Seidman, 1985). On the other hand, Outcalt’s study did uncover evidence that community college faculty are growing increasing isolated and detached from their work and colleagues. While reporting good relationships with colleagues and respect for colleagues’ ability to provide good advice on teaching, the respondents reported spending “just under an hour per day” (p. 99) with colleagues. They also reported very little desire to spend more time with colleagues. Although the minimal amount of time actually spent in informal contact with colleagues might be due to heavy teaching loads, they also report no desire for more informal interaction. Moreover, despite expressing the belief that colleagues were good sources of teaching advice, only doctoral seekers seemed to believe that such advice might actually improve their courses. “It seems, then, that most respondents acted in relative isolation from one another, and that they were more or less content with this state of affairs” (p. 99). When Outcalt turns his attention to the question of how involved faculty are with their professions, we once again come across an apparent contradiction. Early in the book, the author states that there is “no significant correlation between professional involvement and satisfaction” (p. 87). However, he later reports that “the faculty reported a high level of involvement with their profession” (p. 112). The resolution of the contradiction is found in a closer examination of the items that made up the professional involvement construct. On several items the responses indicate greater involvement and on other items the responses indicate lesser involvement. Respondents reported belonging to professional organizations, particularly discipline-based ones, but not desiring more active involvement with the association’s work. They also reported reading educational journals and a belief in continuing education, both an indication of their desire to keep up with changes in their disciplines. However, they did not express a desire to do research or to write for professional journals. What this suggests is a faculty deeply committed to keeping their teaching fresh by providing students with a synthesis of the best thinking in a discipline, but also a faculty with little desire to create new knowledge. An attitude that I would suggest is consistent with the mission of the community college. Answering the question of who do community college faculty identify with is a necessary first step to deciding if community college teaching is a distinct profession. Outcalt sought to determine if four-year college faculty serve as role models for community college faculty. The study found that “community college faculty expressed considerable indebtedness to four-year colleges and universities” (p. 122). However, this influence was lessened the further away a faculty member was from his or her own graduate studies and the longer he or she had worked at a community college. In the last chapter, Outcalt tackles one of the most important questions about community college faculty. “Have community college faculty developed a unified and distinct professional identity” (p. 134). Numerous scholars have debated this issue for more than 25 years with most answering in the negative (Cohen & Brawer, 1977; Garrison, 1967; Grubb, 1999; Seidman, 1985). After reviewing the criteria used by previous researchers, Outcalt draws the conclusion that community faculty have made little progress in forging a unified and distinct professional identity in the 25 years since the Cohen and Brawer study. Taken together, these findings demonstrate that the community college professoriate has grown increasing fragmented since 1975, rather than developing as a distinct professional group. … The further development of the professoriate’s professional identity, as well as instructors’ willingness to accept it as their own, is impeded by several forces: the rising prevalence of part-time instructors, the increased importance of the doctorate, and the ever-expanding mission of community colleges as extra-educational social agencies and the corresponding pressure brought to bear on community college faculty to be almost all things to nearly all people. (p. 158) A Profile of the Community College Professorate, 1975-2000 by Charles Outcalt will be a valuable addition to the library of both researchers and practitioners. He provides us with a clear snapshot of the faculty of today and how it has changed since 1975, and how it might need to change in the future. Researchers interested in understanding the faculty that teach over 50% of the first-time first year college students need to understand the portrait Outcalt has provide us with. Practitioners who want to work with community college faculty and develop them need this book to understand where faculty are coming from. References Cohen, A. M., & Brawer, F. B. (1977). The two-year college instructor today. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. DeBard, R. (1995). Preferred education and experience of community college English faculty: Twenty years later. Community College Review, 23(1), 33-50. Garrison, R. H. (1967). Junior college faculty: Issues and problems. A preliminary national appraisal. Washington, DC: American Association of Community and Junior Colleges. Grubb, N. W. (1999). Honored but invisible: An inside look at teaching in community colleges. New York: Routledge. Huber, M. T. (1998). Community college faculty attitudes and trends, 1997. Menlo Park, CA: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Murray, J. P., & Cunningham, S. (April 23, 2004). New community college faculty cembers and job satisfaction. Paper presented at the Council for the Study of Community Colleges, Minneapolis, MN. O'Banion, T. (Ed.). (1994). Teaching and learning in the community college. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Community Colleges. Seidman, E. (1985). In the words of the faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Vaughan, G. B. (2000). The community college story (2 ed.). Washington, D.C: Community College Press.