Faculty Turnover, Teaching Continuity Capability, and the Sustainability Boundary of Private Higher Education
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54097/rdxxr974Keywords:
Private Higher Education, Faculty Turnover, Teaching Continuity, Contract Insecurity, Educational SustainabilityAbstract
This study examines the conditions under which fixed-term, part-time, and course-based employment arrangements in private higher education cease to function primarily as cost-adjustment mechanisms and instead begin undermining instructional continuity. By constructing a formal model based on the proportion of teaching duties assigned to flexibly employed faculty, this study analyzes the interplay among contract insecurity, affective organizational commitment, workload-driven turnover, instructional continuity capacity, and net savings in staffing costs. The model results indicate that a heavy workload accelerates the point at which the educational sustainability is compromised. Conversely, predictable contract renewal arrangements and robust instructional continuity capacities allow institutions to maintain greater flexibility in staffing without incurring unacceptable losses in instructional continuity.
Downloads
References
[1] Levy, D. C. (2018). Global private higher education: An empirical profile of its size and geographical shape. Higher Education, 76(4), 701–715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0233-6
[2] Liu, X. (2020). The development of private universities in socialist China. Higher Education Policy, 33, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-018-0114-8
[3] Liu, X., & Zhang, L. (2013). Flexibility at the core: What determines employment of part-time faculty in academia? Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations, 68(2), 312–339. https://doi.org/10.7202/1016321ar
[4] Woelert, P., Croucher, G., & Hoang, S. (2026). The rise of a ‘casualised’ workforce: A conceptual account of the institutional forces legitimising contingent academic employment in Australia. Higher Education, 91, 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-025-01405-3
[5] Kahn, P., Moreau, M.-P., & Gagnon, J. (2024). Precarity and illusions of certainty in higher education teaching. Teaching in Higher Education, 29(3), 699–706. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2024.2326403
[6] McCulloch, S., & Leonard, J. (2024). Hidden impacts of precarity on teaching: Effects on student support and feedback on academic writing. Teaching in Higher Education, 29(3), 772–788. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2023.2280258
[7] Crutchley, J., Nahaboo, Z., & Rao, N. (2024). Precarious academic citizens: Early Career Teachers’ experiences and implications for the academy. Teaching in Higher Education, 29(3), 789–809. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2023.2298822
[8] Ehrenberg, R. G., & Zhang, L. (2005). Do tenured and tenure-track faculty matter? Journal of Human Resources, 40(3), 647–659. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.40.3.647
[9] Bettinger, E. P., & Long, B. T. (2010). Does cheaper mean better? The impact of using adjunct instructors on student outcomes. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 92(3), 598–613. https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00014
[10] Figlio, D. N., Schapiro, M. O., & Soter, K. B. (2015). Are tenure track professors better teachers? The Review of Economics and Statistics, 97(4), 715–724. https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00529
[11] Jaeger, A. J., & Eagan, M. K. (2011). Examining retention and contingent faculty use in a state system of public higher education. Educational Policy, 25(3), 507–537. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904810361723
[12] Teichler, U., Arimoto, A., & Cummings, W. K. (2013). The changing academic profession: Major findings of a comparative survey. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6155-1
[13] Henkel, M. (2005). Academic identity and autonomy in a changing policy environment. Higher Education, 49, 155–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-2919-1
[14] Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 121–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01384942
[15] Zhao, H., Wayne, S. J., Glibkowski, B. C., & Bravo, J. (2007). The impact of psychological contract breach on work-related outcomes: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 60(3), 647–680. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00087.x
[16] Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z
[17] Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and turnover: Path analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Personnel Psychology, 46(2), 259–293. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb00874.x
[18] White-Lewis, D. K., O’Meara, K., Mathews, K., & Havey, N. (2023). Leaving the institution or leaving the academy? Analyzing the factors that faculty weigh in actual departure decisions. Research in Higher Education, 64(3), 473–494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-022-09712-9
[19] O’Meara, K., Lennartz, C. J., Kuvaeva, A., Jaeger, A., & Misra, J. (2019). Department conditions and practices associated with faculty workload satisfaction and perceptions of equity. The Journal of Higher Education, 90(5), 744–772. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2019.1584025
[20] Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803932
[21] Trowler, P., & Knight, P. T. (2000). Coming to know in higher education: Theorising faculty entry to new work contexts. Higher Education Research & Development, 19(1), 27–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360050020453
[22] Roxå, T., & Mårtensson, K. (2009). Significant conversations and significant networks: Exploring the backstage of the teaching arena. Studies in Higher Education, 34(5), 547–559. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070802597200
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 International Journal of Education and Humanities
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
