Bob Bussel, Labor Education and Research Center; Georgeanne Cooper, Academic Learning Services; Robert Davis, Romance Languages; Kassia Dellabough, Academic Advising; Alison Evans, American English Institute; Greg McLauchlan, Sociology; Carl Steifbold, Biology; Rick Troxel, Exercise and Movement Science; Jonah Lee, Student Member

INTRODUCTION

While higher education today faces a number of challenges, none is more pressing than the increasing numbers of faculty members serving colleges and universities without the protections of the tenure system. The drop in public support and simultaneous increase in public demand for higher education has created untenable pressures not only at the University of Oregon but nationwide. Institutions have responded to the resulting budget shortfalls and enrollment pressures by increasing the number of nontenure-track and/or part-time instructional faculty. While this development is often discussed as part of an attack on tenure itself the situation and working conditions of nontenure-track instructional faculty are of concern in themselves and require consideration. (p. 1) and the committee continued:

Committee members wish to make clear at the outset that the NNTIF are not a ``problem"; they are valuable, experienced, and professional colleagues. What is problematic is that this cadre of colleagues is doing a large part of the front-line teaching and yet do not have equal access to the facilities and services of the institution. (p. 2)

In its first three years of work the NTTIF Committee has compiled an in-depth archive of information: about the demographics of the NTTIF labor force; about hiring, promotion, and employment policies relating to NTTIF across UO departments; about how UO NTTIF evaluate their employment conditions, compensation, and teaching roles; and about national policy debates and reform efforts at specific universities involving nontenure-track instructional faculty.

For a full picture of these issues, this year's NTTIF Committee report should be seen as a continuation of the Committee's two previous reports (both available on the Committee's website, and included as appendices here), and the reader new to these issues will gain valuable understanding by consulting these documents.

Yet we want to emphasize that we are at a crossroads, and it is time to move from study to policy action and implementation. In Part II of this report, the NTTIF Committee recommends 22 specific policy initiatives that the UO can begin to undertake to improve the working conditions, effectiveness, and compensation of NTTIF-and that we believe will significantly strengthen the University's faculty and our ability to perform our collective mission.

We propose to work with the Senate, administration, Deans and Department Heads in the coming months to refine and no doubt add to our policy recommendations, in anticipation of a final list of recommendations coming before the Senate for discussion and adoption in the fall of 2004. We also recognize that one of the strengths of the University as an institution is its commitment to faculty governance and relative autonomy of departments and units, and our policy recommendations are in many cases crafted broadly in the form of guidelines that can be crafted to suit the specific needs of individual units.
 

I. FINDINGS AND GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS

In this section we present a summary of some of the key findings of the committee from its work over the last three years. The findings are organized thematically by topic-referring to the kinds of policies and institutional innovations the UO can undertake to improve the status of its nontenure-track instructional faculty. We focus on five themes:

The Need for a Well-Informed and Integrated Instructional Faculty

The Need for an Institution-Wide Approach and ``Best Practices"

Creating Better Jobs for a More Effective Instructional Faculty

Moving Toward Greater Fairness and Equity in Compensation

Creating a Culture of Inclusion and Respect

Of 364 NTTIF contacted in the 2003 survey, 161 responded for a response rate of 44%. While this response rate slightly missed the number of interviews (n=187) to be considered representative of the population, the survey nevertheless provides useful information about NTTIF at UO. In particular, we note that 42% of survey respondents have taught at UO longer than seven years, while 69% of those surveyed have taught 3 years or longer. Additionally, 52% of respondents taught on average 17 or more credit hours per year, and 70% had either year-long or two-year contracts. It would be reasonable to surmise that the survey results are weighted toward that group of NTTIF for whom the UO is their full-time or primary career commitment and who have a long-term relationship with the University.

The survey contained 57 questions and covered topics including:

Characteristics of teaching assignments

Hiring practices and employment conditions

Salary, benefits, and appointment information

Satisfaction with salary process, benefits, and employment conditions

Evaluation of teaching environment and professional development opportunities

1. The Need for A Well-Informed and Integrated Instructional Faculty

The responses to these and other questions are perhaps symptomatic of the general situation many NTTIF find themselves in, both locally and nationally. They indicate a substantial part of the instructional faculty lacks an orientation to, and awareness of, some of the basic processes and conditions of employment in the University.

Thus, one of the overarching goals of the committee's work-and of our policy recommendations-is to facilitate a University-wide process of providing useful information to NTTIF, and to departments. We also call attention to the ongoing work by the Office of Academic Affairs which has been working with the committee and is in the process of updating the Faculty Manual regarding NTTIF policy at the UO. We believe having a well-informed and well-integrated instructional faculty will clearly benefit individual instructors and the University community as a whole.

2. The Need for an Institution-Wide Approach and ``Best Practices"

We recognize there are structural reasons for short notice of teaching assignments in some programs, for example with courses that are enrollment dependent for being offered. And contract renewals are sometimes dependent on budgetary uncertainties that are not clarified until late in the year.

Yet even considering these factors, that a 50% satisfaction rate on timeliness of renewal represents the high point in a range of scores that goes considerably below this is troubling. It contributes to the perception that NTTIF are regarded as ``contingent" faculty-even those who have served for many years and who can reasonably expect their contracts to be renewed. We should be mindful of the costs of late notice in contracts and course assignments-to instructional faculty who must adjust their lives, family responsibilities, and finances on short notice, and to the teaching environment, where the quality of the teaching and learning experience can be compromised if there is inadequate time for course preparation.

We believe there is room for progress here. After surveying departments about their NTTIF hiring and employment practices, and interviewing a number of department managers about these in detail (see NTTIF committee reports for 2002 and 2003), it became evident that the wide variation in such practices across campus has much to do with differing department histories and cultures-and the fact that many departments simply do not have adequate written policies governing hiring and employment conditions of NTTIF. For example, of 41 UO units canvassed about NTTIF policies in 2001-02, only 7 reported having written policies relating to employment of NTTIF, while 31 units reported having no written policies.

In the absence of such policies, there can be a ``just in time" nature to NTTIF hiring and teaching notification, a lack of foresight and planning by department heads and administrators, and an ad hoc quality from an institutional standpoint regarding employment conditions of NTTIF. Thus, a central aim of our policy recommendations below is to move toward an institution-wide approach that requires all departments and units to develop comprehensive, written policies for their NTTIF hiring and employment practices.

The development of such policies across the entire institution will be a wise investment: it will improve the morale and efficiency of NTTIF; it will save time and avoid confusion when departments change heads and new administrators are hired; it will add predictability and transparency to University and department level policies; it will improve the overall teaching environment.

To aid departments in the development of NTTIF policy, the committee is working with the Office of Academic Affairs to develop a webpage including examples of ``best practices" currently in use by UO departments and units. The idea is that in many cases these can be readily adopted, or modified, to suit the needs of departments that still need to develop such policies.

3. Creating Better Jobs For a More Effective Instructional Faculty

By definition, the term ``Non-tenure-track instructional faculty" refers to a class of academic workers who do not enjoy the lifetime job security of tenured faculty members. But this has not always been the case for all faculty who have primarily teaching appointments; for example in some departments there has been a system of evaluation and promotion of senior instructors to tenured status after six years. Additionally, there are many ways in which a teaching career at the UO can involve mutual commitments between the institution and its faculty that provide greater job security, a more stable workforce, more professional development opportunities, and higher productivity by instructional faculty.

For example, one of the committee's findings from interviews and a large base of anecdotal evidence is that there are few formal professional development opportunities provided to NTTIF, including for those who are at or near full-time status and who serve for many years. Instead of a system involving systematic review of NTTIF performance that is coupled with regularized opportunities for step increases, merit pay, and seniority status-comparable to the periodic review process of tenure-track faculty-it appears that most NTTIF receive few if any of these opportunities. And again, the variation across departments in these arenas appears to be a result of departmental history and culture, with a few departments offering at least limited opportunities here and taking a more systematic approach.

A number of our policy recommendations are designed to improve the professional development opportunities for NTTIF. For example, we propose that departments establish a probationary period for new NTTIF after which they are reviewed and, if successful, achieve seniority status in future hiring. We believe these and related new policies will promote a work environment that is fair and that offers more opportunities for advancement and long-term commitment by instructional faculty to the UO. Such policies should also enable the University to successfully recruit and retain the most qualified instructional faculty from a wider network of applicants, and should add to the stability and retention of the UO NTTIF work force.

4. Moving Toward Greater Fairness and Equity in Compensation

The committee would reinforce the assessment of other bodies such as the AAUP and AFT regarding the corrosive consequences of this trend for higher education. On the one hand, with the increase in a low-paid contingent labor force the institution of tenure, and ultimately the academic freedom on which it is based, is threatened. At the same time, the significant shift in teaching responsibilities to a NTTIF labor force has begun to re-define the meaning of the university teaching profession, and the career paths of Ph.D. recipients in an increasing number of fields, in a way that makes a university teaching and research career less attractive to future cohorts of graduate students.

Thus, we would emphasize here that while the quantitative issue of financial compensation (compensation is defined as salary plus benefits) of NTTIF is important in its own right, it is also linked to efforts to improve other aspects of the status and job characteristics of NTTIF within the University. The issues of compensation, hiring and employment standards, and professional development opportunities are parts of a larger whole. We think coordinated progress in all three arenas, and narrowing of the gap between NTTIF and tenure track faculty, will be beneficial to the entire instructional faculty and to the University.

The 2003 survey of NTTIF gathered limited salary data because more accurate and comprehensive data is available from the UO Office of Resource Management. Given that any survey is going to have a response rate that is significantly below 100%, and that we don't know the salary characteristics of non-respondents, it is far more reliable to use institution-wide data. For a broader picture of salary data for UO NTTIF, we refer the reader to Appendices A-F of the 2003 NTTIF committee report. Here we briefly summarize several salient features of the NTTIF employment and compensation situation; then we indicate the committee's recommendations for moving forward (all data from Office of Resource Management summaries provided to the committee unless indicated otherwise):

• Of the 161 NTTIF responding to our survey, 54% reported that their UO salary represented between 81-100% of their yearly income, and another 24% reported their UO salary represented between 41-80% of their income. Clearly, for a significant number of NTTIF, their UO career is their primary source of income and their major career commitment.
• Data from the Office of Resource Management show that in 2003 (Winter term) of 167 ``regular" fixed-term faculty, 138 (83%) had FTEs above .5, while of 241 ``adjunct" fixed-term faculty, 77 (32%) had FTEs above .5. For all NTTIF of instructor rank in 2003, the average years in rank was 4.7. Thus, for most ``regular" NTTIF and a significant number of ``adjunct" NTTIF the University has made a substantial employment commitment, including fringe benefits (triggered at .5 FTE), and for many NTTIF the UO represents a long-term career commitment.
• As of Spring 2004 the average salary of UO NTTIF instructors was about 84% of that for instructors in 7 OUS defined peer institutions. This figure is somewhat lower than the average for tenure-track faculty ranks. We note that since the implementation of the Senate Budget Committee White Paper process in 2000, the UO salary averages of all three tenured/ tenure-track faculty ranks have increased vis a vis UO comparators, while the average salary of instructors has decreased vis a vis the same comparators.
• The average salary of UO instructors (.9 FTE and above) in Winter 2003, ($37,100) was 55% of the average salary of all tenured ranks ($67,200).

In the first two years of implementation of the White Paper process, TTF salary levels did in fact make modest progress vis a vis our comparators, though with the Oregon budget crisis of the last two years and disinvestment in higher education we have seen some backsliding or stagnation more recently. NTTIF salaries were not the focus in this period of an institution-wide effort in the same respect, and according to the Senate Budget Committee (May 2004 report) salary levels of this group have fallen, both in relation to comparator institutions and in relation to UO TTF salaries.

In 2004 the NTTIF and Senate Budget Committees formed a joint subcommittee to address the NTTIF salary issue and revisit the question of a creating a systematic mechanism for tracking and improving NTTIF salaries over time. After a careful analysis of the language and provisions of the 2000 White Paper (which is still in effect), the subcommittee agreed to recommend to the NTTIF Committee, and SBC, that a significant section of NTTIF be brought into the ``White Paper" process, i.e. that there be a systematic, institution-wide effort to track NTTIF salary averages and bring these up to the 95% level of comparator institutions.

Several issues still need to be ironed out by the NTTIF committee, SBC, and administration before such an effort can be finalized and come before the Senate for endorsement.

First, because the White Paper process is based on a comparative process that seeks to compare total compensation levels (salary and benefits), and because the basis of such comparison is based on comparing classes of faculty with roughly equivalent instructional appointments, the NTTIF/SBC subcommittee suggested that the group of UO NTTIF to be included in the White Paper process consist of those who are employed at .5 FTE and above (on a yearly basis) and who have three years of service at the UO. The NTTIF committee, and joint subcommittee, both feel this is a reasonable threshold: it includes all regular NTTIF who have made a significant career commitment to the UO and for whom the UO has likewise made a commitment, both over time and in terms of significant resources (e.g. benefits). The .5 threshold allows for cases where NTTIF might teach, for example, at .8 or 1.0 FTE for several years, but drop down to .6 for a year due to family circumstances, or because of a temporary budgetary shortfall.

Second, we still have to identify a reliable method of comparison of salary averages of the group defined above with those of NTTIF at comparator institutions. The subcommittee will continue to work with the Office of Resource Management and administration over the spring and into the first of the fall term with the aim of arriving at a method of tracking NTTIF salary levels. This might be in relation to reasonably well-defined groups at comparator institutions, or it might be that we would track UO NTTIF salaries vis a vis UO TTF salary levels (which are subject to systematic comparison with our comparator institutions) as a proxy in case there is a lack of data for direct comparison of NTTIF salaries across institutions.

Third, this still leaves the issue of progress on compensation for NTTIF teaching below .5 FTE. We think this will require additional kinds of data and methods of comparison. For example, many faculty in this category are paid on a per-course basis, and such pay levels vary greatly across departments at the UO, and comparison with other institutions would no doubt be difficult due to issues of differential credit hours, course workloads and job descriptions, etc. Furthermore, many adjunct instructors who teach one or several courses per year on a per course basis are individuals with careers outside the UO that are their main source of income (in some cases with salary levels substantially higher than UO's), and many such individuals teach as a public service or because it offers professional benefits, contacts, etc. We are not suggesting here that compensation issues for this group (NTTIF below .5 FTE) can be ignored or deferred, or that we should take advantage of the fact that some in this group don't rely on the UO for a significant part of their income.

We simply indicate that a number of different policy considerations may come into play when addressing this diverse group of NTTIF. Members of the committee are well aware, for example, that in some if not many units the per-course compensation level has stayed the same for many years, and we suspect that over a longer time period the secular trend has seen a decline in compensation for NTTIF teaching as adjuncts, which does not bode well for the objectives of improving quality of recruitment and instruction, and basic issues of fairness. While many of the committee's policy recommendations in this report address hiring, work conditions, and other concerns of adjunct NTTIF, in the coming year the committee will focus its attention on salary and compensation issues.

5. Creating a Culture of Inclusion and Respect

Yet for many faculty-both tenure-related and NTTIF-the concept of a true community of scholars seems to be one that is at best only partially realized. We have not escaped the national trend, which has evolved toward a two-tier faculty and a two-tier system of instruction, where tenure-related faculty are focused largely on research and graduate instruction, while an increasing share of undergraduate instruction has been taken over by NTTIF. The real issue here from our point of view is not one of a division of labor-it is instead one of bridging a division within our community of scholars.

One of our most troubling findings is summarized in a comment by a faculty member in the qualitative section of the 2003 survey:

The worst part of being a non-tenure track faculty member is the utter disrespect from tenure-track faculty. It's discouraging to be treated as a second-class citizen after many years of a successful professional career (p. 88).

Another respondent commented:

What kind of representation do the NTTIF have? I understand that as an NTTIF I am not a voting member of the UO faculty. Why not? I find myself increasingly frustrated by the low pay, heavy workload, and [lack of] representation of NTTIF (p. 89).

In short, the view that NTTIF at the University of Oregon are not regarded with the respect, and do not have opportunities for participation and status, as ``full" members of a university's faculty, seems to be fairly widespread.

We do not have systematic survey data measuring this perception (and reality), but the evidence we have from numerous sources-interviews, experiences in departments of committee members, not to mention the large literature on the subject in relation to the academy at large-leads us to conclude that we can do better in creating a faculty culture, and institutional processes, that are inclusive and that will foster the creation of a broader university community.

Again, we note a large variance in practices across campus here, for example in how well NTTIF are integrated into department decision-making. For example, among all survey respondents only 31% of NTTIF agreed with the statement ``I have a say in department decisions", while 57% responded either ``disagree" or ``neutral" to that question. Yet some departments regularly invite NTTIF to meetings, and include NTTIF in certain aspects of decision-making. For example, only 4% of humanities, and 10% and 12% of AAA and Journalism NTTIF indicated they were not invited to department meetings. But in the natural sciences and social sciences, this figure was 43% and 58% respectively.

Our specific policy recommendations include ones designed to create a stronger faculty community and help bridge some of the gaps in the instructional division of labor. We propose for example that ``Departments should develop policies to include NTTIF in departmental decision-making, and should strive to include NTTIF in the departmental culture". In many cases, we can make major progress here simply by opening our dialogue to a larger group of colleagues, and by being mindful of the benefits of inclusion amidst the pressures of a hectic work schedule and time-pressures.

II. SPECIFIC POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

All departments and units should have comprehensive, published policies detailing their NTTIF hiring practices. Such policies should, at minimum, include the following elements:

• 1. Advertising of Positions. All departments should have written policies on the advertising of positions, including: a) advertising to increase the diversity of the applicant pool, b) target dates for announcements to guarantee ample notice of openings and course preparation time for instructors.
• 2. Orientation to Department. All NTTIF should receive a comprehensive orientation to the policies and procedures of the department or unit; a written version of policies and procedures should be made available to all NTTIF.
• 3. Description of duties. All appointments, including part-time appointments, should have a description of the specific professional duties required. Complex institutions may require multiple models of faculty appointments consistent with the diverse contributions appropriate to the institution's needs.
• 4. Evaluation and Promotion. NTTIF job performance should be evaluated in a manner comparable to the evaluation of TTF; if hired for multiple years, NTTIF should be subject to a probationary period at the end of which they are eligible for seniority status.
• 5. Link Evaluation to Professional Development Opportunities. Decisions on compensation, promotion, and reappointment should be based on the specified duties of the position. The regular evaluation process should be clearly linked to the possibility of salary increase, contract extension, change in job title, and other possibilities for professional development and support.
• 6. Implement Seniority Policy. NTTIF who are hired at .5 and above and reappointed for multiple years and successfully complete a probationary review, should receive a form of seniority in future hiring. Once seniority is achieved, non-reappointment should be allowed only if the courses are not being offered or for cause (following due process protections).
• 7. Reappointment, Change, or Termination in Appointment Notice. Although timely notice terms are explicitly stated on the employee's contract when the job offer is made, many NTTIF have reasonable expectations that their contracts will be renewed for additional contract periods at a similar (or greater) FTE level. Alerting NTTIF at the earliest possible time of contract renewal, or of imminent termination or nonrenewal of their contract or changes/reductions in FTE, is a common professional courtesy so that they have the opportunity to make adjustments in their benefit coverage or maintain their livelihood with a timely search for other employment.

NTTIF make a substantial contribution to the educational mission of the University of Oregon. Policies should be developed that extend opportunities for professional development to NTTIF and that implement humane, ``best practices" in employment standards. Such policies should include the following:

• 1. Support for Professional Development. NTTIF who are reappointed from year to year should receive professional development support that includes travel to conferences, time release for conferences, and access to university resources.
• 2. Provision of Information and Physical Resources. NTTIF should be provided the resources necessary to perform their assigned duties in a professional manner, including such things as appropriate office space, necessary supplies, support services, and equipment. The Committee suggests that faculty support and resources available to NTTIF be more accessible and timely, and that detailed information about the UO resources (physical, information based, etc) available to instructional faculty be provided at both the campus-wide and department (or college) levels.
• 3. Research Resources. Departments should strive to make certain research resources available to NTTIF. For example, there may be shared data bases, special consultants or grant-development personnel, computing or software resources, and the like that departments could easily, and often with no or minimal cost, make available to NTTIF. We recognize that the contracts for NTTIF specify teaching duties, as opposed to basic research, as the basis of their employment. Yet quality teaching requires keeping abreast of research developments in one's field; moreover, many NTTIF are engaged in research pursuits in an effort to develop their careers in addition to their regular UO teaching responsibilities. And, for many NTTIF positions success in research and publication is a criteria for hiring, promotion, or reappointment. It is to the advantage of the University as well as NTTIF to make research resources more accessible.
• 4. University-Wide Data Base. A general knowledge base of University-wide resources pertaining to research, teaching, and professional development opportunities should be developed and published on the web. This would benefit all faculty, and in particular NTTIF who often do not receive the same level of orientation, notification, etc. regarding such resources.
• 5. Update Faculty Handbook for NTTIF. The UO Faculty Handbook should include a new special section for NTTIF faculty; if maintained on-line, university policies could be continually updated and given timely attention. Currently, methods of making NTTIF faculty aware of information about resources and policies are not readily available.
• 6. Include NTTIF in Decision-Making. Departments should develop policies to include NTTIF in departmental decision-making, and should strive to include NTTIF in the departmental culture. The potential contributions of NTTIF to decision-making in areas of curriculum development and instruction, in particular, are often under-utilized resources.
• 7. Develop Career Paths; Recognize Years of Service. Many Instructors and Senior Instructors work full-time at the UO, often for years or decades. Yet there is wide variation in the availability of a career path or other recognition of this service across departments. Departments without a promotion path to Senior Instructor should be encouraged to develop one, whereby after six years an Instructor is eligible for review and promotion to Senior Instructor, with provision for two-year contracts, timely notice, and eligibility for sabbatical leave.
• 8. Sabbatical Leave. NTTIF are technically eligible for paid leaves, but many units cannot afford to cover the costs. Approval for sabbatical leave should be standardized so that senior instructors in those departments/schools that cannot fund sabbaticals for them from their budgets will not be denied this opportunity. Funding should be provided in the same manner as for tenure-track faculty as long as all other requirements are met.
• 9. Develop and Publish ``Best Practices". The NTTIF committee should work with the Office of the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs to provide an on-line archive of ``best practice" models in the areas of hiring, employment practices, and professional development that departments can reference.
• 10. Create Ombudsperson Position. An NTTIF advocate or ombudsperson position should be created, to help increase communication and community among members of the NTTIF, help point NTTIF towards campus resources, and act as a repository of knowledge regarding UO NTTIF policies and employment rights. Given the current budget situation, if an ombudsperson cannot be appointed, this duty might be performed by selected faculty members across the campus.
• 11. Grievances and Appeals. The process for informal and formal handling of grievances, including opportunities for appeal, should be made available to NTTIF and should include guarantees that using the grievance process will not be used as a factor in determining contract renewals. (Although the University has a process in place for handling grievances and appeals that is available for all faculty members, NTTIF often feel, given the fixed-term nature of their employment, that using this process leaves them vulnerable to not having their contracts renewed).
• 12. Time-Line for Policy Implementation. Departments should be given deadlines to develop written guidelines and policy statements; once developed, these guidelines and policies should be available on-line, in departmental offices, and in the Office of the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs

• 1. Include NTTIF in Senate ``White Paper" Compensation Process. We recommend that NTTIF who have .5 and greater FTE appointments and who have taught for three years be formally included in the class of ``instructional faculty" that is encompassed in the 2000 Senate Budget Committee White Paper, adopted by the Senate in March 2000. We support the work currently underway by the NTTIF committee, Senate Budget Committee, and administration to develop a methodology for measuring and tracking NTTIF compensation, and propose that after input from the relevant parties a formal proposal for incorporating NTTIF into the White Paper compensation improvement plan be considered and adopted by the Senate in Fall 2004.
• 2. Address the Issue of Adjunct NTTIF Compensation. The question of compensation policy regarding adjunct NTTIF needs to be addressed; we propose that the NTTIF Committee and Senate Budget Committee, working with the administration, make this a priority item on their work plan for the 2004-05 year, so that policy proposals in this arena can be developed by the end of the year.

1. Inclusion in Faculty Governance. Because NTTIF represent a significant percentage of University of Oregon teaching faculty and are essential to maintaining the high quality of education and fulfilling the University's mission, NTTIF should have representation and voting rights in the University of Oregon Senate. We recommend that during 2004-05 the committee work with the Senate leadership and the administration to develop a proposal for NTTIF representation in the Senate.

References

1. American Association of University Professors. 2003. ``Contingent Appointments and the Academic Profession". www.aaup.org
2. American Federation of Teachers. 2002. ``Standards of Good Practice in the Employment of Part-Time/ Adjunct Faculty". www.aft.org/higher_ed
3. Gumbhir, Vikas. 2003. ``NTTIF Survey Report: Summary of Results of March 2003 Survey of University of Oregon Nontenure-track Faculty". (December, 101pp.)
4. University of Oregon Committee on the Status of Nontenure-track Instructional Faculty. 2003. ``2003 Report of the NTTIF Committee" (May). (on the Senate web page)
5. University of Oregon Senate Ad Hoc Committee on the Status of Nontennure-track Instructional Faculty. 2002. ``2002 Report of the Senate Ad Hoc Committee" (May). (on the Senate web page)
6. University of Oregon Senate Budget Committee. 2000. ``University Senate Budget Committee White Paper: A Plan for Sustained Competitive Parity in Instructional Faculty Compensation" (March). (on the Senate web page)

Appendices

Gumbhir, Vikas. 2003. ``NTTIF Survey Report: Summary of Results of March 2003 Survey of University of Oregon Nontenure-track Faculty". (December, 101pp.)