3.8 Article

You've Got to Put the Student First: Faculty Advisors as Educators and Emotional Laborers in Community College Baccalaureate Contexts

期刊

COMMUNITY COLLEGE REVIEW
卷 52, 期 1, 页码 121-143

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/00915521231201449

关键词

community college baccalaureate; emotional labor; community college faculty; academic advising

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examines the emotional labor of faculty advisors at baccalaureate degree-granting community colleges in the context of funding concerns and increased work expectations. The findings highlight that advisors prioritize students' needs, overextend themselves selflessly, and face pressures from neoliberalism and bureaucratic checkpoints. It contributes to the literature by addressing the complexities of community college faculty's work and professional lives and shedding light on the normalization of emotional labor in their role.
Objective: Given funding concerns and heightened work expectations at baccalaureate degree-granting community colleges, we set out to understand faculty advisors' emotional labor in such context. Methods: We conducted a supra analysis, which is a form of secondary analysis of qualitative data. Existing interview data were drawn from a mixed-methods study focused on changes in academic advising policies and practices at baccalaureate degree-granting community colleges. Results: We identified three interrelated themes: (a) putting students first; (b) overextending oneself selflessly; and (c) pressures of neoliberalism and bureaucratic checkpoints. Conclusion/Contributions: This work addresses an important gap in the literature as it pertains to the complexities of the work and professional lives of community college faculty at CCB-conferring colleges. In addition to highlighting the emotional labor of CCB faculty advisors, this work further illuminates how community colleges have normalized emotional labor as part of the community college faculty role.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据