In recent years, higher education has seen a proliferation of research pertaining to minoritized faculty experiences (Casado Pérez, 2019; Misra et al., 2024; Wright-Mair, 2023; Wright-Mair & Ramos, 2021). However, little research has explored the intersection of race and queerness with respect to faculty, opting instead to look at queer faculty and faculty of color as separate entity groups. While these existing studies on queer faculty and faculty of color provide valuable insights into the unique challenges that both groups face in higher education, these studies often fail to account for the compounded minoritization experienced by those who identify as both queer and faculty of color.
Of the specific literature that currently exists on queer faculty of color, much of it pertains to exploring the impact of campus climate on faculty issues such as overall well-being, persistence, and retention (Aguilar & Johnson, 2017; BrckaLorenz et al., 2023a). However, there has been less focus on how these faculty navigate their daily lives in the academy, including the ways they balance their professional responsibilities and cultivate relationships with colleagues. Understanding these aspects is essential for capturing the full picture of their experiences and institutional engagement, which allows for the development of more inclusive policies, support systems, and campus climates that affirm queer faculty of color. Given the lack of research exploring other components of campus climate and faculty life, we therefore focused on work balance, collegial relationships, as well as faculty and institutional values for teaching while paying particular attention to how tenure status shapes these components of faculty life. Our research questions are as follows:
How do queer faculty of color spend their time in the academy?
How do the ways in which queer faculty of color spend their time relate to personal and institutional values?
To address these research questions, we employed a quantitative research design using secondary data from the 2021–2022 administration of the College + University Teaching Environment (CUTE) survey. Using t-tests and correlation analyses, we explored differences based on tenure status and identified patterns that speak to broader structural inequities. This methodological approach allows us to fill a critical gap in the literature by centering the intersecting experiences of queer faculty of color and offering empirical evidence on how institutional structures shape their professional lives.
Literature review
While researchers have examined challenges faced by queer faculty and faculty of color separately, there remains a gap in understanding how these intersecting identities influence faculty experiences in the academy. The intersection of queerness and racial identity can intensify experiences of exclusion, tokenization, and cultural taxation, often placing queer faculty of color in uniquely precarious positions within their institutions (Wright-Mair, 2023). These intersecting identities shape not only how faculty are perceived by colleagues and students but also how they navigate institutional structures, expectations, and support systems. It is therefore essential to examine these identities in tandem to fully understand the nuanced and often invisible burdens queer faculty of color carry in the academy.
In this section, we present literature as it pertains to queer faculty, faculty of color, and when possible, queer faculty of color. We begin by highlighting disparities in faculty representation, discuss the experiences of minoritized faculty, and conclude by focusing on queer faculty of color’s navigation of the tenure process.
Representation of queer faculty of color
The full extent of queer faculty of color’s representation remains largely unknown, largely due to a lack of systematic data collection on sexual orientation in faculty demographic surveys, as well as the tendency for existing datasets to prioritize binary categories and aggregated racial classifications, which fail to capture and/or report the intersection between these identities. Historically, studies on faculty representation have therefore explored representation based on identities separately.
BrckaLorenz et al. (2019) found that LGBQ+1 faculty are overrepresented in fields such as the arts, humanities, and social sciences while underrepresented in fields such as business, engineering, and computer science. They also found that LGBQ+ faculty are overrepresented in Assistant and Associate Professor ranks and underrepresented in Full Professor ranks (BrckaLorenz et al., 2019). Importantly though, as Eliason (2023) points out, “It’s not clear if LGBTQ people are underrepresented on faculty or are not out” (p. 2511). Whether as a result of underrepresentation or invisibility of one’s identities, the true extent of queer faculty representation remains unclear, posing challenges for accurately addressing their needs and experiences within academia.
For faculty of color, representation similarly varies by discipline, rank, and racial identity (Li & Koedel, 2017; Turner et al., 1999; Turner et al., 2008). For example, Li & Koedel (2017) found that in general, Black and Hispanic faculty are underrepresented while white and Asian faculty are overrepresented. For example, at the time of data collection for their study, Asian people made up 4.7% of the U.S. population yet accounted for 20.9% of economics professors, 14.4% of chemistry professors, and 12.9% of biology professors. Meanwhile, Black people made up 12.2% of the U.S. population yet accounted for only 2.9% of economics professors, 1.4% of chemistry professors, and 0.7% of biology professors.
Though several factors can contribute to disparities in representation, Turner et al. (1999) suggested that campus climate in particular can contribute to negative environments for minoritized faculty. For example, many queer faculty and faculty of color view certain disciplines, such as science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), as unwelcoming and threatening due to structural inequities and disrespect (Misra et al., 2024; Patridge et al., 2014). These studies also discuss how disciplinary norms, departmental cultures, and hiring practices all contribute to disparities in representation across racial identities (Misra et al., 2024; Patridge et al., 2014). While data on representation offers a snapshot of who makes up the academy, it does not fully capture individual day-to-day experiences. To understand the implications of underrepresentation, we now turn to examining how minoritized faculty navigate academic environments, including the challenges they face and the additional burden they often carry.
The experiences of minoritized faculty in the academy
Campuses can often be hostile places for minoritized faculty. Due to a range of negative experiences with tokenism (Niemann, 2011; Turner et al., 2008; Wright-Mair, 2023), microaggressions (Orelus, 2020; Pittman, 2012), and cultural taxation—which describes the ways minoritized faculty are tasked with particular responsibilities because of their social identities (Guillaume & Apodaca, 2022)—faculty from several minoritized populations are more likely to leave their institutions (BrckaLorenz et al., 2023a; BrckaLorenz et al., 2023b; Kelly et al., 2017). In addition to tokenism, microaggressions, and cultural taxation, queer faculty often navigate complex dynamics of visibility and identity management. Bilimoria and Stewart (2009) emphasize how queer faculty must constantly negotiate the decision to disclose or conceal their identities, a process shaped by institutional climates and perceived risks. Sitting at the intersection of multiple forms of marginalization, queer faculty of color often face heightened levels of discrimination as well as additional barriers to success (Aguilar & Johnson, 2017). However, scholarship has yet to explore the experiences of queer faculty of color in great depth.
Researchers have found that both queer faculty and faculty of color often experience microaggressions, which though subtle and seemingly innocuous, can have negative effects on their well-being (Orelus, 2020; Pittman, 2012). These experiences contribute to chronic stress, emotional exhaustion, and a diminished sense of belonging (Eagan Jr. & Garvey, 2015). For queer faculty of color, the intersection of racial and sexual marginalization can intensify these psychological burdens, leading to heightened vulnerability, to burnout, and to disengagement (BrckaLorenz et al., 2023a; Settles et al., 2019). For example, BrckaLorenz et al. (2023a) found that queer faculty of color experience more stress than their faculty peers and are more likely to think about leaving their institution. The emotional and psychological labor required to navigate these environments—often without adequate institutional support—can erode mental health and well-being, underscoring the need for institutions to develop more responsive and inclusive support systems.
Minoritized faculty can also be tasked with additional teaching and service responsibilities that do not count towards their tenure and promotion portfolio (Galarza, 2019; Griffin et al., 2013; Guillaume & Apodaca, 2022). For example, Guillaume & Apodaca (2022) found that to navigate this additional labor, queer faculty of color often had to be strategic about how they allocated their time. Between being overworked and disrespected, minoritized faculty can often feel like they do not belong on campus (Scharrón-Del Río, 2020; Settles et al., 2019) and a lack of sense of belonging can lead minoritized faculty to want to leave their current institutions (BrckaLorenz et al., 2023a; BrckaLorenz et al., 2023b; Garvey & Rankin, 2018). When faculty do not reflect the diversity of the student body, students from underrepresented backgrounds may struggle to find mentors who understand their experiences, which can lead to lower retention and success rates (Davis, 2010; Garvey et al., 2019). These inequities further contribute to the difficulties in increasing representation of minoritized faculty on campus and can be exacerbated by the tenure process.
Queer faculty of color and the tenure process
The tenure process continues to be heavily critiqued for being problematic and inequitable, especially for minoritized faculty (Garza, 1993; Griffin et al., 2013; Hurtado & Sharkness, 2008; Williams & Williams, 2006). For faculty who hold minoritized identities, the tenure process is further complicated by the ways their work (often seen as an extension of themselves and their identities) is perceived by colleagues and institutional leaders (Griffin et al., 2013; Settles et al., 2019; Settles et al., 2022). Faculty engaged in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)-related scholarship and/or public-facing activism often face greater scrutiny in their tenure evaluations, as their work is seen as ‘less rigorous’ (Griffin et al., 2013). This scrutiny reflects broader structural biases within tenure systems that privilege traditional types of research over interdisciplinary, community-engaged, or justice-oriented scholarship (Antonio, 2002). As a result, minoritized faculty who work centers minoritized communities may find their contributions undervalued or dismissed (Antonio, 2002).
These biases disproportionately affect queer faculty of color, whose teaching and research often challenges dominant narratives in academia (Aguilar-Hernández, 2020; Scharrón-Del Río, 2020). Given the limited research in this area, future studies are needed to understand how reforms to tenure policies and practices can better support queer faculty of color. Without such structural changes, the tenure system will continue to disproportionately affect queer faculty of color rather than serve as a fair assessment of faculty achievements. To advance our understanding of the tenure system and queer faculty of colors’ experiences in the academy, in this study, we explore how queer faculty of color spend their time and how that relates to their personal and institutional values.
Conceptual framing
We utilize the College + University Teaching Environment (CUTE) framework (see Figure 1) as a way to understand college and university teaching environments for faculty (BrckaLorenz, 2021; BrckaLorenz et al., 2025). This framework is comprised of four main components: 1) processes and policies, 2) people, 3) resources, and 4) affect. The framework was built on several foundational frameworks on positive and diverse faculty teaching environments: Self-Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000; 2017), Supportive Teaching Cultures (Feldman & Paulsen, 1999), Rethinking Faculty Work (Gappa et al., 2005), and Diverse Learning Environments (Hurtado et al., 2012). These frameworks describe how faculty experiences are shaped by organizational elements as well as by personal emotional and physiological needs. The developer of the CUTE framework used these prior frameworks to develop the survey measures as well as to create the conceptual framework itself (BrckaLorenz, 2021; BrckaLorenz et al., 2025).
Figure 1. College + University Teaching Environment Conceptual Framework
BrckaLorenz, A. (2021). College + University Teaching Environment Framework. Center for Postsecondary Research. https://cutesurvey.iu.edu/
In our study, we use the CUTE framework to better understand the college and university teaching environments for queer faculty of color. As discussed earlier in the literature review, queer faculty of color are often siloed in certain disciplines and experience various forms of hostility. Attaining a deeper understanding of the nuances of queer faculty of color’s experiences is therefore essential to being able to provide more tangible support structures. More specifically, the CUTE framework provided us with a way to measure and consider faculty’s time and values as vital components of their workload and teaching experience.
The CUTE framework directly informs our investigation by offering a lens through which to examine how institutional processes, interpersonal dynamics, resources, and affective experiences shape faculty work environments. Specifically, our research questions—focused on how queer faculty of color spend their time and how that time aligns with personal and institutional values—map onto the framework’s emphasis on workload distribution (processes and policies), collegial relationships (people), institutional support (resources), and value alignment (affect). By using this framework, we are able to contextualize faculty time use not just as a matter of individual choice, but as a reflection of broader structural and cultural forces within the academy.
Method
For this study, we used secondary data from the 2021–2022 administrations of the College + University Teaching Environment (CUTE) survey, which we received access to from the Director of the survey. CUTE asks questions about faculty support, needs, motivations, etc. to help colleges and universities better support their faculty. As a survey that blends questions about climate with questions about lived realities and working conditions, CUTE was an appropriate tool to use for our research questions. Considering our research questions, we limited our analysis to queer faculty of color, which make up a total of 78 faculty from 12 institutions in the United States and Puerto Rico. The 12 institutions consisted of nine public and three private colleges and universities. One institution was classified as a Historically Black College or University (HBCU). The majority of the institutions were classified as doctoral-level universities, two institutions were master’s-level institutions, and one was baccalaureate-level.
Measures
Queer faculty of color
For the purposes of this study, we defined queer faculty of color as any faculty that did not select straight and did not select white. Majority of the sample were Hispanic or Latine (37%), Black or African American (18%), Multiracial (18%), Asian (14%), Another race or ethnicity (9%), Middle Eastern or North African (3%), and/or American Indian or Alaska Native (1%). Multiracial faculty included participants who selected more than one race/ethnicity and therefore may have included participants that selected white in addition to a second, non-white identity. Because we did not want to make assumptions about those individuals’ relationships with whiteness, we chose to include them in our analyses of queer faculty of color. Regarding sexual orientation, the majority of the sample identified as bisexual (35%), gay (33%), lesbian (4%), queer (18%), questioning or unsure (5%), and another sexual orientation (5%).
Tenure status
To distinguish queer faculty of color based on tenure status in our analysis, we recoded the tenure variable into a dichotomous variable for 1) tenured and tenure-track faculty (61%), and 2) faculty who are not on the tenure track (39%).
Time
Time consisted of a total of 14 items about how faculty spend their time. Four of these items were on a 30-hour per week scale and related primarily to allotment of time towards tenure areas (i.e., teaching, advising, research, service). Ten of these items were on a 20-hour per week scale and related primarily to allotment of time towards various activities in and out of their job description. See Table 2 for full item details.
Values
We used several CUTE scales to conceptualize Values. In particular, we used the scales for Balanced Work (BW), Collegial Relationships (CR), Values for Teaching (VT), Identity: Teacher (IdT), Identity: Researcher (IdR), Identity: Service (IdS), and Employment Equity (EE). The BW scale includes items that ask faculty to rate how much they feel that their institution values their teaching, research, and service as well as if their institution’s expectations of their workload are reasonable. The CR scale includes items that ask faculty to rate their relationships with individuals around campus including departmental colleagues, department chair or supervisor, administrative staff, etc. The VT scale includes items that ask faculty about how much their department and colleagues value quality teaching. The three Identity (IdT, IdR, IdS) scales include items that ask faculty to rate how much different responsibilities like teaching, research, and service reflect their identity and core values as a person. Finally, the EE scale includes items that ask faculty to rate how much they feel they have adequate resources, opportunities, and other forms of support to do their best teaching at their institution. Each of these scales contained items pertaining to faculty perceptions of their own values as well as institutional values related to their work. All scales also had Cronbach alphas of > .7, indicating strong reliability.
Analyses
To answer our first research question, we ran t-tests to compare the means related to our time variables by tenure status. To answer our second research question, we conducted correlations between the time items and values items, analyzing the Pearson’s r correlation coefficients. We ran correlations first for tenured and tenure-track faculty and then ran a second set of correlations for faculty not on the tenure track.
Positionality
As critical scholars, it is important to interrogate our identities, experiences, and positionalities with respect to how they played a role in this research project. Steven identifies as a white, queer doctoral student and Christen identifies as a Black woman heterosexual faculty member. Together, our identities offer us insights into the experiences and queer and racially minoritized people in higher education. For example, I (Steven) aspire to join the professoriate upon completing my doctoral studies. As a queer scholar, I am cognizant of the ways in which I do and do not see myself represented in the current makeup of the faculty at my institution and in the field more broadly. And I see similar disappointments in the academy from my queer colleagues of color who often see even fewer people that hold similar identities. I (Christen) identify as heterosexual Black woman and frequently witness dissonance in how my majoritized and minoritized identities shift others’ perceptions of me. As a Black woman, I recognize the uniqueness of my positioning as faculty in higher education while acknowledging how the normativity of my sexual orientation creates access to a level of comfortability in academic spaces that my queer colleagues do not have. Due to the varying aspects of our identities, we are deeply committed to understanding the conditions that create this lack of representation.
Additionally, as scholars who hold identities that are often ignored or misrepresented in quantitative research, we are also cognizant of the ways that just as identity gets politicized in higher education broadly, identity is also politicized and contextual in research. In every research project, researchers make choices and these decisions have consequences, both positive and negative, which necessarily shape the role of identity in the study. In our study on queer faculty of color, we choose to uplift an underrepresented population in research, rather than perpetuate their marginalization by pushing back against hegemonic norms in research, acknowledging the ways intersections of identity shape people’s lived experiences, and generating data and findings that can drive meaningful change on campus. Along those lines, we also chose to conduct a study on queer faculty of color without comparing their experiences with non-queer faculty of color. In doing so, we challenge the pervasive argument in the academy that for experiences of minoritized people to be valid, they must be compared to those who hold privileged identities (Priddie et al., 2022).
Limitations
We acknowledge that, despite our study’s merits, there are some limitations as well. First, this is a secondary dataset and we were therefore unable to control the question wording or recruitment methods. Due to our lack of control regarding data collection processes, our sample may or may not be representative of all, or even most queer faculty of color in the academy. Future studies may want to engage in intentional recruitment practices to obtain a more diverse and representative sample of queer faculty of color. Relatedly, as a result of using secondary data, we were also limited in part by the variable construction. For example, the Time items were created through midpoint coding, which can flatten the data and are not as precise as if faculty had self-reported specific values. Additionally, institutions self-selected to take the CUTE survey. In other words, institutions may have a more vested interest in participating in this study if they already place a higher value in the teaching environment for their faculty. We are therefore limited in our ability to understand faculty perspectives from institutions that did not self-select to participate in CUTE. Finally, in our study, we do not track changes in time allocation or personal values over time. Longitudinal studies tracking faculty over multiple years or at different time-stamps in one’s career could provide context for how and why faculty’s time and values might change through the course of one’s career. Despite these limitations, our study offers a necessary starting point for addressing the gaps in research on queer faculty of color.
Results
Demographic information
We recognize that how queer faculty of color spend their time may depend, at least in part, on different factors related to their specific job functions at their institution. In our sample of 78 queer faculty of color, the largest academic discipline represented was Arts & Humanities, with strong presences as well in the Social Sciences and Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Computer Science. Approximately 43% of the faculty in our sample taught entirely in-person on campus, with the rest teaching entirely online (synchronously or asynchronously) or teaching a mix of in-person and online courses. Approximately 71% of faculty taught two or fewer undergraduate courses per term. Our sample included faculty that held a range of academic ranks and tenure statuses. 39% of the sample included faculty who were tenured or on the tenure track. One third of the sample included adjunct faculty and about one fifth held an administrative appointment. See Table 1 for an extensive demographic breakdown.
Table 1. Participant demographic information
| Percent | |
| Academic discipline | |
| Arts & Humanities | 36 |
| Biological Sciences, Agriculture, & Natural Resources | 6 |
| Business | 4 |
| Communications, Media, & Public Relations | 1 |
| Education | 9 |
| Engineering | 1 |
| Health Professions | 4 |
| Physical Sciences, Mathematics, & Computer Science | 14 |
| Social Sciences | 14 |
| Social Service Professions | 5 |
| Other disciplines | 5 |
| Format of courses | |
| Entirely in-person instruction on campus | 43 |
| Entirely in-person instruction at an auxiliary location (satellite campus, rented facility, etc.) | 1 |
| Entirely online instruction where students attend class at specific times (synchronous) | 20 |
| Entirely online instruction where students always participate at times of their choosing (asynchronous) | 11 |
| A mix of in-person and online instruction | 25 |
| Number of undergraduate courses taught per term | |
| 0 | 10 |
| 1 | 39 |
| 2 | 22 |
| 3 | 10 |
| 4 | 4 |
| 5 or more | 14 |
| Academic rank or title | |
| Professor | 17 |
| Associate Professor | 15 |
| Assistant Professor | 18 |
| Instructor | 21 |
| Lecturer | 8 |
| Other academic rank or title | 22 |
| Tenure status | |
| Tenured | 26 |
| On tenure track but not tenured | 13 |
| Not on tenure track, but this institution has a tenure system | 57 |
| No tenure system at this institution | 4 |
| Is considered to be an adjunct faculty member | |
| No | 63 |
| Yes | 37 |
| Holds an administrative position | |
| No | 81 |
| Yes | 19 |
How do queer faculty of color spend their time in the academy?
Among the Time items, non-tenure-track queer faculty of color spend about 15 hours a week engaging in teaching activities (M = 15.38, SD = 10.37), 10 hours a week with research activities (M = 10.43, SD = 9.46), 7 hours a week with service activities (M = 6.51, SD = 6.17), and 6 hours a week advising students (M = 6.28, SD = 6.71). In contrast, tenured and tenure-track queer faculty of color spend about 17 hours a week engaging in teaching activities (M = 16.57, SD = 9.05), 11 hours a week with research activities (M = 11.31, SD = 9.08), 10 hours a week with service activities (M = 9.64, SD = 8.63), and 7 hours a week advising students (M = 7.07, SD = 6.57). See Table 2 for full details.
We conducted a series of t-tests to explore how queer faculty of color differ in time allocation specifically by tenure status. Results indicated that for most Time items, there were not notable differences in time allocation between non-tenure-track and tenured/tenure-track queer faculty of color. One significant difference exists in time spent on consulting, freelance work, or employment outside of academia (t = –3.44, p = .001), indicating that non-tenure-track queer faculty of color engage in these activities at a higher rate than their tenured and tenure-track counterparts. Non-tenure-track queer faculty of color reported spending significantly more time on these external professional activities (M = 6.59, SD = 7.89) compared with their tenured/tenure-track counterparts (M = 2.17, SD = 2.89). These findings suggest that while non-tenure-track queer faculty of color may engage more in external professional activities, on the whole, there are not significant tenure-related differences across most Time items for queer faculty of color.
Table 2. T-test of Time items by tenure status
| In the coming school year, about how many hours do you anticipate spending on each of the following in a typical 7-day week? | Not on the tenure track | Tenured and tenure-track | t | p | Cohen’s d | ||
| n | Mean (SD) | n | Mean (SD) | ||||
| Teaching activities (preparing, teaching class sessions, grading, etc.) | 46 | 15.38 (10.37) | 29 | 16.57 (9.05) | |||
| Advising students | 46 | 6.28 (6.71) | 29 | 7.07 (6.57) | |||
| Research, creative, or scholarly activities | 45 | 10.43 (9.46) | 29 | 11.31 (9.08) | |||
| Service activities (committee work, administrative duties, etc.) | 44 | 6.51 (6.17) | 29 | 9.64 (8.63) | |||
| Preparing class sessions | 46 | 8.04 (6.01) | 29 | 7.74 (5.67) | |||
| Teaching class sessions | 46 | 6.80 (4.71) | 29 | 9.40 (6.41) | |||
| Grading assignments and exams | 46 | 6.79 (4.67) | 29 | 7.19 (5.96) | |||
| Meetings with students outside of class | 46 | 4.48 (3.65) | 29 | 4.16 (2.51) | |||
| Course administration (emailing students, maintaining course website, etc.) | 46 | 6.01 (4.92) | 28 | 5.93 (4.32) | |||
| Working to improve your teaching (self-reflection, attending teaching or technology workshops, etc.) | 46 | 5.21 (4.35) | 28 | 4.00 (3.82) | |||
| Doing consulting, freelance work, or employment outside of academia | 46 | 6.59 (7.89) | 29 | 2.17 (2.89) | 3.44 | .001*** | .684 |
| Doing community service or volunteer work | 45 | 3.53 (4.34) | 29 | 3.14 (2.73) | |||
| Household, childcare, or other caregiving duties | 46 | 8.90 (7.52) | 29 | 9.31 (7.02) | |||
| Relaxing and socializing | 46 | 6.48 (5.21) | 29 | 7.33 (4.83) | |||
-
1 Response options: 0, 1–4, 5–8, 9–12, 13–16, 17–20, 21–30, More than 30 hours
2 Response options: 0, 1–4, 5–8, 9–12, 13–16, 17–20, More than 20 hours
Note: *** Levene’s test was significant. We only present t and Cohen’s d values for items where p-value has significance at p < .05.
Although the t-test did not reveal statistically significant differences between non-tenure-track and tenured/tenure-track queer faculty of color in tenure-related activities (i.e., teaching, research, service), it is worth noting that tenured/tenure-track queer faculty of color spend more time on average in these activities than non-tenure-track queer faculty of color.
How do the ways in which queer faculty of color spend their time relate to personal and institutional values?
Next, we explored how time and values differed based on queer faculty of color’s tenure status (see Tables 3 and 4). For tenured and tenure-track queer faculty of color, time spent on research, creative, or scholarly activities, the more they feel that research activities reflect their identity and core values as a person (r = .39, p < .05), reinforcing the centrality of research to professional identity among tenure-line faculty. Conversely, the more time tenured and tenure-track queer faculty of color spend meeting with students outside of class, the less they feel that research activities reflect their identity and core values as a person (r = –.38, p < .05). Additionally, time spent doing community service or volunteer work was positively associated with service identity (r = .40, p < .05), indicating that these activities may affirm faculty members’ sense of purpose and service-oriented identity. Several time commitments were negatively associated with values. For example, time spent grading assignments and exams was negatively correlated with balanced work (r = –.38, p < .05), collegial relationships (r = –.53, p < .01), and values for teaching (r = –.53, p < .01). Similarly, meetings with students outside of class, course administration, and working to improve teaching were all negatively associated with multiple value scales, including balanced work, collegial relationships, and values for teaching. These findings suggest that even among tenured and tenure-track queer faculty of color, certain routine teaching-related tasks may detract from their sense of institutional alignment and professional fulfillment. See Table 3 for full details.
Table 3. Significant correlations between Time items and Values Scales for tenured and tenure-track faculty
| BW | CR | VT | IdT | IdR | IdS | EE | |
| a) Teaching activities (preparing, teaching class sessions, grading, etc.) | |||||||
| b) Advising students | |||||||
| c) Research, creative, or scholarly activities | .39* | ||||||
| d) Service activities (committee work, administrative duties, etc.) | |||||||
| e) Preparing class sessions | |||||||
| f) Teaching class sessions | |||||||
| g) Grading assignments and exams | –.38* | –.53** | –.53** | ||||
| h) Meetings with students outside of class | –.39* | –.38* | –.38* | ||||
| i) Course administration (emailing students, maintaining course website, etc.) | –.43* | –.53** | –.54** | ||||
| j) Working to improve your teaching (self-reflection, attending teaching or technology workshops, etc.) | –.43* | –.54** | –.40* | ||||
| k) Doing consulting, freelance work, or employment outside of academia | |||||||
| l) Doing community service or volunteer work | –.39* | .40* | |||||
| m) Household, childcare, or other caregiving duties | –.38* | ||||||
| n) Relaxing and socializing | |||||||
| BW | .83** | .90** | .75** | ||||
| CR | .85** | .67** | |||||
| VT | .41* | .76** | |||||
| IdT | .70** | .54** | |||||
| IdR | .67** | ||||||
| IdS | .45* | ||||||
| EE |
-
Note: *p < .05, **p < .01.
Scale abbreviations are as follows: BW = Balanced Work; CR = Collegial Relationship; VT = Values for Teaching; IdT = Identity: Teacher; IdR = Identity: Researcher; IdS = Identity: Service; EE = Employment Equity.
Table 4. Significant correlations between Time items and Values scales for faculty not on the tenure track
| BW | CR | VT | IdT | IdR | IdS | EE | |
| a) Teaching activities (preparing, teaching class sessions, grading, etc.) | |||||||
| b) Advising students | |||||||
| c) Research, creative, or scholarly activities | .31* | ||||||
| d) Service activities (committee work, administrative duties, etc.) | |||||||
| e) Preparing class sessions | |||||||
| f) Teaching class sessions | |||||||
| g) Grading assignments and exams | |||||||
| h) Meetings with students outside of class | .36* | .37* | |||||
| I) Course administration (emailing students, maintaining course website, etc.) | |||||||
| j) Working to improve your teaching (self-reflection, attending teaching or technology workshops, etc.) | .35* | .30* | |||||
| k) Doing consulting, freelance work, or employment outside of academia | |||||||
| l) Doing community service or volunteer work | .33* | .32* | |||||
| m) Household, childcare, or other caregiving duties | |||||||
| n) Relaxing and socializing | |||||||
| BW | .80** | .87** | .44** | .87** | |||
| CR | .85** | .30* | .41** | .70** | |||
| VT | .37* | .84** | |||||
| IdT | .48** | .64** | .30* | ||||
| IdR | .49** | ||||||
| IdS | .34* | ||||||
| EE |
-
Note: *p < .05, **p < .01.
Scale abbreviations are as follows: BW = Balanced Work; CR = Collegial Relationship; VT = Values for Teaching; IdT = Identity: Teacher; IdR = Identity: Researcher; IdS = Identity: Service; EE = Employment Equity
Correlations for queer faculty of color not on the tenure track reveal different patterns (see Table 4). Time spent on research, creative, or scholarly activities was positively associated with researcher identity (r = .31, p < .05), reinforcing the importance of research to professional identity even among non-tenure-track faculty. Time spent meeting with students outside of class was positively associated with both researcher identity (r = .36, p < .05) and service identity (r = .37, p < .05). Similarly, working to improve teaching was positively associated with both researcher identity (r = .35, p < .05) and service identity (r = .30, p < .05), indicating that professional development may reinforce multiple aspects of identity for queer faculty of color not on the tenure track. Additionally, doing consulting, freelance work, or employment outside of academia was positively associated with balanced work (r = .33, p < .05) and collegial relationships (r = .32, p < .05), suggesting that external professional activities may enhance perceptions of institutional support and peer engagement. These findings highlight that for non-tenure-track queer faculty of color, time spent on research and external engagement is more closely aligned with their personal and professional values than time spent on internal administrative or evaluative tasks.
Discussion
As scholars have discussed, queer faculty of color disproportionately get tasked with allocating their time in ways that do not always factor into their tenure dossier (Guillaume & Apodaca, 2022). Our study contributes to the research landscape in higher education by offering insight into not only how queer faculty of color spend their time, but also how their time spent relates to personal and institutional values. In designing this study, we intentionally chose not to compare queer faculty of color to faculty with privileged identities. By analyzing survey data on its own terms—centering the lived realities of queer faculty of color—we demonstrate how quantitative datasets can be used to affirm rather than diminish marginalized voices. Importantly, our findings reveal that while time allocations are relatively similar across tenure status, the alignment between time spent and values differs significantly, highlighting structural inequities in faculty experiences.
Contrary to prevailing narratives that suggest stark differences in workload between tenured/tenure-track and non-tenure-track faculty (Kezar, 2012), our findings show that both groups of queer faculty of color spend comparable amounts of time on teaching, research, and service. That said, the one exception is that non-tenure-track queer faculty of color engage in external professional activities, such as consulting and freelance work, at higher rates than their tenured and tenure-track counterparts. This may reflect a need to supplement income, seek professional validation, or find fulfillment outside of institutional structures that may not fully support or recognize their contributions.
In the literature, there exists a prevailing belief that how tenured/tenure-track and non-tenure-track faculty spend their time in the academy is vastly different. For example, Kezar (2012) wrote:
In academia, there are two different worlds, one inhabited by tenure-track and the other by non-tenure-track faculty. …In this first world, we envision faculty simultaneously increasing their content knowledge in the ever-expanding world of research and deeply engaging with their institutions and students. In the parallel world of non-tenure-track faculty, there is little time or opportunity to engage in these practices. (p. 7)
Yet based on our findings, on the whole, both tenured/tenure-track and non-tenure-track queer faculty of color spend much of their time engaged in teaching-, research-, and service-related activities. This finding conflicts with the belief that non-tenure-track faculty do not have the time to engage in these activities and instead suggest that time allocations between tenured/tenure-track and non-tenure-track faculty may differ based on different identity configurations.
Another key finding relates to how queer faculty of color perceive the alignment of their work with their personal values. Both tenured/tenure-track and non-tenure-track queer faculty of color who spend more time on research-related activities report a stronger identification with research as a core component of their professional identity. However, several teaching-related tasks—such as grading, course administration, and even working to improve teaching—were negatively associated with perceptions of balanced work, collegial relationships, and values for teaching. These findings suggest that even for tenured and tenure-track queer faculty of color, routine teaching responsibilities may be experienced as misaligned with their professional values and/or undervalued by their institutions. In contrast, non-tenure-track queer faculty of color exhibited more positive associations between time spent and values. Time spent on research, meeting with students, and improving teaching were all positively correlated with aspects of professional identity, particularly researcher and service identities. Additionally, external professional activities were positively associated with perceptions of balanced work and collegial relationships. These findings suggest that non-tenure-track queer faculty of color may find greater alignment between their time-use and values when engaging in research and external work, possibly because these activities offer more autonomy or recognition than internal institutional tasks.
These patterns point to a broader misalignment between institutional expectations and the values of queer faculty of color, particularly for those in tenure-track roles. While tenure may offer security, it does not necessarily guarantee alignment between workload and professional identity. Conversely, non-tenure-track faculty may find value in their work through external engagements or student interactions, but often without the institutional support or recognition afforded to their tenured peers (Maxey & Kezar, 2015). This misallocation of institutional support can also have dire consequences. When they feel less institutional support, non-tenure-track queer faculty of color can feel undervalued and overwhelmed, which can lead to feelings of burnout. Consequently, this emotional and physical exhaustion increases the likelihood that they will leave their institution (BrckaLorenz et al., 2023a; BrckaLorenz et al., 2023b; Garvey & Rankin, 2018). By not addressing the undervaluing of non-tenure track queer faculty of color and by overutilizing tenured and tenure track queer faculty of color for work that does not align with their values, institutions risk losing valuable faculty who contribute to the academic fabric of the campus community. In addition, even for queer faculty of color who do not quit their job or leave academia, this affective phenomenon does still illustrate the ways that institutions “burn through” their minoritized faculty (Anderson, 2021).
Finally, these findings demonstrate how each of the four main components of the CUTE framework plays a role in shaping the experiences of queer faculty of color. Though the framework presents the four components of college and university teaching environments separately, we see all four components as operating together to shape the experiences of queer faculty of color. First, the institutional processes and policies related to workload and tenure may work to provide validation and valuation of tenured/tenure-track queer faculty of color’s time spent engaging in teaching, research, and service, but ultimately they create inequities for non-tenure-track queer faculty of color putting in roughly the same amount of time without the rewards and structural supports that come with tenure. This misalignment reveals the need for policies that both recognize the diverse contributions of all queer faculty of color as well as provide tangible structures for support for non-tenure-track queer faculty of color to improve the correlations between their time spent and personal values.
Second, people, particularly collegial relationships, are closely linked to queer faculty of color’s well-being. Our findings show that tenured and tenure-track queer faculty of color feel that the amount of time they spend on various activities such as course administration and grading ultimately diminishes their sense of collegial relationships. This is significant because strong collegial relationships can provide necessary support networks that help queer faculty of color navigate institutional challenges and feel a greater sense of belonging (Wright-Mair & Marine, 2021). Without opportunities to balance their work responsibilities, tenured and tenure-track queer faculty of color may feel as though they do not have the time to create essential support networks with colleagues.
Third, the lack of resources exacerbates the challenges queer faculty of color face, leading to burnout and dissatisfaction. Time is but one example of a resource that queer faculty of color need in order to thrive at their institution. Not only do queer faculty of color need time to dedicate to their various responsibilities, they also need to have the freedom to allocate their time in more meaningful ways in order to more fully integrate their values into their work. Finally, affect is evident in how queer faculty of color perceive their personal values as reflected in their work or not. Misalignment between institutional expectations and personal values creates tension, underscoring the need for institutions to consider the affective and axiological dimensions of faculty well-being. Recognizing and addressing this misalignment is essential for fostering a campus environment that respects, affirms, and values the personal and professional identities of queer faculty of color. Collectively, our findings emphasize how the four main components of the CUTE framework are deeply interwoven in shaping the academic lives of queer faculty of color.
Implications
We aimed to shine a light on queer faculty of color, a population largely understudied in higher education. Our decision to avoid comparative analysis with privileged groups allowed us to center queer faculty of color’s experiences authentically and affirms their realities without requiring validation through contrast. Yet, there remains more work to be done in that respect. From our findings, we pose several implications for future research as well as practice.
Research implications
From a research perspective, our study demonstrates the utility of the CUTE framework and the importance of examining the different components of faculty’s teaching environments. Faculty should not be seen as operating independent of their personal needs and values. We also encourage future scholars and researchers to further explore the relationship between queer faculty of color’s time and values, using a dataset that more intentionally seeks to capture the voices of queer faculty of color. More intentional recruitment may yield a more diverse sample as well as different findings.
Additionally, future research should disaggregate queer faculty of color into further subgroups based on specific queer and racial identities. Differences between various racial or sexual identity groups, as well as departmental or disciplinary differences, need to be examined. Disaggregation will help nuance the conversation further to account for more diverse experiences within the broader umbrella of queer faculty of color. Finally, future research should seek to better understand the conditions under which queer faculty of color formulate their values. Factors that influence or motivate queer faculty of color to place greater value in some areas over others must be explored. Additionally, the relationship between their values and the institutions they choose to work at, as well as the duration of their stay at a particular institution type, should be investigated.
Relatedly, research should explore the role of institution type in shaping the experiences of queer faculty of color. With only twelve institutions in our sample, we were not able to fully explore this context in great depth. However, future research could explore questions such as: How do queer faculty of color experience workload distribution and institutional support at research-intensive institutions compared to teaching-focused institutions? Are queer faculty of color at historically minority-serving institutions better supported than those at predominantly white institutions? Answers to these questions may produce insights that can help to inform institutional decisions around faculty recruitment and retention initiatives.
Practical implications
Along those lines, our study has several implications for practice. Administrators, institutional leaders, and department chairs can use the findings from our study to better understand the challenges queer faculty of color face in balancing their work responsibilities. With that knowledge, those individuals can then make decisions that will better allow for queer faculty of color to allocate their time in ways that will be respected and rewarded in academia. At present, faculty’s values are undervalued in academia, leading to a host of issues that can affect faculty morale and performance. By helping queer faculty of color allocate their time in ways that better align with their values, institutions will be able to retain more queer faculty of color and improve morale among queer faculty of color on campus.
Institutions should also consider reforms to the tenure evaluation process. First, institutions should explicitly recognize and reward labor that queer faculty of color are disproportionately expected to perform. Second, institutions can also consider creating structures for time allocation adjustments, such as buyouts for service work or mentoring, protected time for research, or clear caps on service responsibilities. Such structures may allow faculty to better allocate time in accordance with their values. Finally, institutions should regularly review tenure and promotion outcomes for faculty who hold multiple minoritized identities to assess whether structural biases are embedded into their current practices.
Our findings also hold insights for educational program developers, such as those working in Centers for Teaching and Learning. Queer faculty of color, especially non-tenure-track faculty, often do not receive adequate institutional support, thus prompting them to seek out external forms of support such as mentoring and relationships with other queer faculty of color through their networks (Wright-Mair and Marine, 2021). Educational program developers, especially those that work at higher education institutions, should create intentional programs designed for queer faculty of color specifically, to help them make sense of their own personal and institutional values and strategize how to align their work with those values. These culturally relevant programs would aid in giving queer faculty of color the tools and skills needed to navigate the racist and cisheterosexist institutions they work at and could improve their retention rates. Educational developers can also facilitate conversations within departments about workload equity and value alignment, helping faculty and chairs recognize the invisible labor often performed by minoritized colleagues.
Educational developers often occupy a unique position within higher education institutions. They often hold formal roles as staff members and yet their primary responsibility is to support faculty development without holding formal authority over institutional policies or processes. That said, educational developers have the ability to influence decision-makers and advocate for change. In particular, they can and should work with department chairs, tenure and promotion committees, deans, provosts, and other leaders in academic affairs to encourage them to create more inclusive and equitable environments for queer faculty of color. By leveraging their position as institutional connectors, educational developers can play a pivotal role in reshaping academic cultures to better support the values, identities, and contributions of queer faculty of color.
It is also important to note the precarious position of educational developers, particularly those who hold staff roles, as these positions can exist at an increased risk of job loss or position elimination. Additionally, in today’s sociopolitical climate, educational developers who engage in advocacy work for faculty who hold minoritized identities may be at an even greater risk. Despite these insecurities, educational developers play an important role in advancing equity. To navigate this dissonance between job insecurity and a commitment to advocacy, educational developers can adopt strategic approaches to their work that balances risk with impact. This can include building coalitions with other faculty and administrators to share responsibility for equity-related initiatives as well as aligning their inclusion and advocacy work to institutional goals. These strategies allow educational developers to continue trying to improve campus environments for queer faculty of color while still protecting their professional standing as much as they are able.
Conclusion
The findings from our study point to significant misalignments between how queer faculty of color spend their time and how their work is valued by their institutions. To create more inclusive and equitable environments, institutions must reexamine their structures to better support queer faculty of color, ensuring that their time spent on various activities align with their values. Our findings suggest that faculty developers and institutional leaders must implement targeted strategies such as mentoring programs tailored to queer faculty of color, service buyouts, workload audits, and training for department chairs to recognize invisible labor. These action items are essential for fostering equity and supporting the unique mentoring needs of this demographic. Doing so will better foster long-term retention and success and allow queer faculty of color to thrive both personally and professionally.
Beyond addressing disparities in how queer faculty of color spend their time, institutions must also take proactive steps to dismantle structural inequities embedded within faculty evaluation processes that devalue queer faculty of color’s contributions and accomplishments. By addressing the institutional barriers that queer faculty of color face and realigning faculty workload expectations with personal and institutional values, colleges and universities can move towards a more inclusive and equitable academic landscape. Only through sustained commitment and structural change can higher education create an environment where queer faculty of color are not merely surviving, but thriving.
Notes
- Here, we use the acronym ‘LGBQ+,’ which stands for ‘lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, and other minoritized sexual orientations,’ in alignment with the terminology that the authors whose studies we mention here use. In this paper, we use the word ‘queer’ as an umbrella term to refer to all non-straight sexual identities. Although the word queer can also be used to refer to some non-cisgender gender identities, in this study, we only use it to refer to sexual orientation. ⮭
Biography
Steven Feldman is a PhD candidate in Higher Education at Indiana University Bloomington where they also work as a Graduate Assistant in the Center for Postsecondary Research. Steven has prior experience working in LGBTQ Services, academic advising, and undergraduate admissions. Their research focuses on trans and queer communities as well as Jewish identity and antisemitism.
Christen Priddie, Ph.D. is an Assistant Research Scientist with the National Survey of Student Engagement in the Center for Postsecondary Research at Indiana University Bloomington. Christen holds expertise in utilizing a QuantCrit framing to engage scholarship around racism and anti-blackness in higher education. She also intentionally explores Black women faculty and other women of color faculty’s experiences in academia.
Acknowledgments
We would like to acknowledge Dr. Allison BrckaLorenz for her guidance and for creating the CUTE survey and framework, both of which were instrumental to this study.
Conflict of Interest Statement
The authors have no conflict of interest.
Data Availability
The data reported in this manuscript are available on request by contacting Dr. Allison BrckaLorenz, CUTE Survey Director, at cutesurv@iu.edu.
References
Aguilar, D., & Johnson, J. M. (2017). Queer faculty and staff of color. In J. M. Johnson & G. Javier (Eds.), Queer people of color in higher education (pp. 57–72). Information Age Publishing.
Aguilar-Hernández, J. M. (2020). Queering critical race pedagogy: Reflections of disrupting erasure while centering intersectionality. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 33(6), 679–694. http://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2020.1747660
Anderson, R. K. (2021). Burned out or burned through? The costs of student affairs diversity work. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 58(4), 359–371. http://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2020.1822853
Antonio, A. L. (2002). Faculty of color reconsidered: Reassessing contributions to scholarship. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(5), 582–602. http://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2002.11777169
Bilimoria, D., & Stewart, A. J. (2009). “Don’t ask, don’t tell”: The academic climate for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender faculty in science and engineering. NWSA Journal, 21(2), 85–103. http://doi.org/10.1353/ff.2009.a316151
BrckaLorenz, A. (2021). College + University Teaching Environment Framework. Center for Postsecondary Research. https://cutesurvey.iu.edu
BrckaLorenz, A., Brandon, J., & Chamis, E. (2025). Motivating excellence: A reimagined view of faculty work environments. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 57(2), 40–46. http://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2025.2471265
BrckaLorenz, A., Chamis, E., & Feldman, S. (2023a, April) Faculty feelings matter: Environmental experiences of queer faculty of color. Paper presentation at the American Educational Research Association (AERA) Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, United States.
BrckaLorenz, A., Feldman, S., Christiaens, R., Russell, A., & Wenger, K. (2023b, November) Somewhere to stay and thrive: Relationships between persistence and environments for diverse faculty. Paper presentation at the ASHE (Association for the Study of Higher Education) Annual Conference, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
BrckaLorenz, A., Fassett, K. T., & Merckle, R. T. (2019). Advancing truth: Expanding our knowledge of LGBQ+ faculty. 2019 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, pp. 1–25. http://doi.org/10.3102/1435478
Casado Pérez, J. F. (2019). Everyday resistance strategies by minoritized faculty. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 12(2), 170–179. http://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000090
Davis, D. J. (2010). The academic influence of mentoring upon African American undergraduate aspirants to the professoriate. Urban Review: Issues and Ideas in Public Education, 42(2), 143–158. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-009-0122-5
Eagan, Jr., M. K., & Garvey, J. C. (2015). Stressing out: Connecting race, gender, and stress with faculty productivity. The Journal of Higher Education, 86(6), 923–954. http://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2015.11777389
Eliason, M. J. (2023). Queer faculty in the academy: Is It getting better? Journal of Homosexuality, 71(11), 2507–2532. http://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2023.2252963
Feldman, K. A., & Paulsen, M. B. (1999). Faculty motivation: The role of a supportive teaching culture. New directions for teaching and learning, 78, 69–78. http://doi.org/10.1002/tl.7807
Galarza, J. (2019). Clearing the path: Queer faculty of color navigating tenure and promotion. In J. C. Wadley (Ed.), Handbook of Sexuality Leadership (pp. 161–172). Routledge.
Gappa, J. M., Austin, A. E., & Trice, A. G. (2005). Rethinking academic work and workplaces. Change, 37(6), 32–39. http://doi.org/10.3200/CHNG.37.6.32-39
Garvey, J. C., & Rankin, S. (2018). The influence of campus climate and urbanization on queer-spectrum and trans-spectrum faculty intent to leave. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 11(1), 67–81. http://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000035
Garvey, J. C., Mobley Jr., S. D., Summerville, K. S., & Moore, G. T. (2019). Queer and trans* students of color: Navigating identity disclosure and college contexts. The Journal of Higher Education, 90(1), 150–178. http://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2018.1449081
Garza, H. (1993). Second-class academics: Chicano/Latino faculty in U.S. universities. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1993(53), 33–41. http://doi.org/10.1002/tl.37219935305
Griffin, K. A., Bennett, J. C., & Harris, J. (2013). Marginalizing merit?: Gender differences in Black faculty D/discourses on tenure, advancement, and professional success. The Review of Higher Education, 36(4), 489–512. http://doi.org/10.1353/rhe.2013.0040
Guillaume, R. O., & Apodaca, E. C. (2022). Early career faculty of color and promotion and tenure: The intersection of advancement in the academy and cultural taxation. Race Ethnicity and Education, 25(4), 546–563. http://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2020.1718084
Hurtado, S., & Sharkness, J. (2008). Scholarship is changing, and so must tenure review. Academe, 94(5), 37–39. Available at: http://bonner.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/130642713/Hurtado%20&%20Sharkness%20-%202008%20Scholarship%20is%20changing.pdf
Hurtado, S., Alvarez, C. L., Guillermo-Wann, C., Cuellar, M., & Arellano, L. (2012). A model for diverse learning environments: The scholarship on creating and assessing conditions for student success. In J. C. Smart & M. B. Paulsen (Eds.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, 27, 41–122. Springer. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2950-6_2
Kelly, B. T., Gayles, J. G., & Williams, C. D. (2017). Recruitment without retention: A critical case of Black faculty unrest. The Journal of Negro Education, 86(3), 305–317. http://doi.org/10.7709/jnegroeducation.86.3.0305
Kezar, A. (2012). Spanning the great divide between tenure-track and non-tenure-track faculty. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 44(6), 6–13. http://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2012.728949
Li, D., & Koedel, C. (2017). Representation and salary gaps by race-ethnicity and gender at selective public universities. Educational Researcher, 46(7), 343–354. http://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17726535
Maxey, D., & Kezar, A. (2015). Revealing opportunities and obstacles for changing non-tenure-track faculty practices: An examination of stakeholders’ awareness of institutional contradictions. The Journal of Higher Education, 86(4), 564–594. http://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2015.11777375
Misra, J., Mickey, E. L., Kanelee, E. S., & Smith-Doerr, L. (2024). Creating inclusive department climates in STEM fields: Multiple faculty perspectives on the same departments. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 17(2), 176–189. http://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000402
Niemann, Y. F. (2011). Diffusing the impact of tokenism on Faculty of Color. To Improve the Academy, 30(1), 216–229. http://doi.org/10.1002/j.2334-4822.2011.tb00659.x
Orelus, P. W. (2020). The cost of being professors and administrators of color in predominantly white institutions: Unpacking microagression, isolation, exclusion, and unfairness through a critical race lens. Diaspora, Indigenous, and Minority Education, 14(2), 117–132. http://doi.org/10.1080/15595692.2020.1719063
Patridge, E. V., Barthelemy, R., & Rankin, S. R. (2014). Factors impacting the academic climate for LGBQ STEM faculty. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 20(1), 75–98. http://doi.org/10.1615/JWomenMinorScienEng.2014007429
Pittman, C. T. (2012). Racial microaggressions: The narratives of African American faculty at a predominantly white university. The Journal of Negro Education, 81(1), 82. http://doi.org/10.7709/jnegroeducation.81.1.0082
Priddie, C., Palmer, D., Silberstein, S., & BrckaLorenz, A. (2022). Centering Black women faculty: Magnifying powerful voices. To Improve the Academy: A Journal of Educational Development, 41(2), 96–127. http://doi.org/10.3998/tia.246
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. http://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. New York: Guildford Publications.
Scharrón-Del Río, M. R. (2020). Intersectionality is not a choice: Reflections of a queer scholar of color on teaching, writing, and belonging in LGBTQ Studies and academia. Journal of Homosexuality, 67(3), 294–304. http://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2018.1528074
Settles, I. H., Buchanan, N. T., & Dotson, K. (2019). Scrutinized but not recognized: (In)visibility and hypervisibility experiences of faculty of color. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 113, 62–74. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.06.003
Settles, I. H., Jones, M. K., Buchanan, N. T., & Brassel, S. T. (2022). Epistemic exclusion of women faculty and Faculty of Color: Understanding scholar(ly) devaluation as a predictor of turnover intentions. Journal of Higher Education, 93(1), 31–55. http://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2021.1914494
Turner, C. S. V., Myers, S. L., & Creswell, J. W. (1999). Exploring underrepresentation: The case of Faculty of Color in the Midwest. The Journal of Higher Education, 70(1), 27–59. http://doi.org/10.2307/2649117
Turner, C. S. V., Wood, J. L., & González, J. C. (2008). Faculty of color in academe: What 20 years of literature tells us. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1(3), 139–168. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0012837
Williams, B. N., & Williams, S. M. (2006). Perceptions of African American male junior faculty on promotion and tenure: Implications for community building and social capital. Teachers College Record, 108(2), 287–315. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00649.x
Wright-Mair, R. (2023). The costs of staying: Experiences of racially minoritized LGBTQ + faculty in the field of higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 48(2), 329–350. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-022-09620-x
Wright-Mair, R., & Marine, S. B. (2021). The impact of relationships on the experiences of racially minoritized LGBTQ+ faculty in higher education. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 16(6), 673–683. http://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000373
Wright-Mair, R., & Ramos, D. (2021). Neutrality for whom? Racially minoritized tenure-track faculty navigating resource deficit consciousness in the academy. Journal of the Professoriate, 12(2), 82–115.
