The Propensity of Community College Chief Academic Officers to Leave an Institution.

The study described in this report was designed to measure the propensity of community college chief academic officers (CAOs) to leave their current position and college, the levels of satisfaction they feel with their jobs, and their perceptions of role conflict and ambiguity. For the purposes of this study, a chief academic officer (CAO) is defined as the administrative head with responsibility for all academic affairs at the institution. At most community colleges the chief academic officer is the second highest-ranking administrative officer and reports to the president. Although there are numerous titles in use, the most common

   titles used by community colleges for the chief academic officer include
   academic dean, academic vice-president, vice-president for instruction,
   instructional dean, dean of the college, .... In addition, community
   colleges often use the title "provost" to designate the head of a campus in
   multi-campus or multi-college operations; in many cases, the provost also
   serves as the chief academic officer for the campus. Definitions aside,
   however, each institution recognizes its chief academic officer as the
   person responsible for the institution's academic programs, the academic
   leader who works directly with the faculty. (Vaughan, 1990, p. 6)

Recently the executive vice president has become an increasingly popular title for those performing the duties of the CAO at community colleges.

Despite the nearly universal existence of job descriptions for this position at community colleges, the responsibilities of the chief academic officer are often ill-defined (Wolverton, Wolverton, & Gmelch, 1999). Vaughan (1990) notes that researchers have documented from 48 to 168 separate duties for CAOs at community colleges. Although not all duties carry the same degree of urgency, the CAO is accountable for performing or supervising the performance of all of them. Because CAOs are the direct link between the administration and faculty, they may have a greater effect on the internal affairs of an institution than even the president (Birnbaum, 1992; Mech, 1997; Vaughan, 1990). Despite its potential for effectiveness, this position often means being caught between the administration and the faculty, which is a significant source of role conflict and role ambiguity for CAOs.

Role conflict occurs when individuals find it necessary to handle duties that appear to be inconsistent or in conflict with their self-perception of their role or roles within the organizational structure. For example, for CAOs this might occur when (in their administrative role) they have to carry out a personnel action having a negative effect on a faculty member who (in their faculty leader role) they consider a colleague. Role ambiguity, on the other hand, occurs when a CAO is uncertain about the functional boundaries of his or her organizational role. For example, a CAO who believes he or she needs to seek higher-level approval for what to others is a routine decision may be experiencing role ambiguity. Suppose, for example, a CAO believes that a faculty member's willingness to develop an Internet-based course justifies reducing or redistributing his or his workload. If the CAO is uncertain, about whether he or she needs to seek presidential approval before offering the faculty member a reduced load this would be role ambiguity.

Several researchers who have focused on institutions of higher education have concluded that there is a direct connection between job satisfaction and stress resulting from role conflict or role ambiguity (McBride, Munday, & Tunnell, 1992; Milosheff, 1990; Simpson, 1984). Researchers have also established that job dissatisfaction and voluntary job turnover are strongly correlated (Cano & Miller, 1992; Glick, 1992; McBride, Munday, & Tunnell, 1992).

   Job satisfaction represents the individual workers subjective evaluation of
   the degree to which his or her requirements are met by the work
   environment. [Theory] clearly states that the correspondence (or `fit')
   between individual and organizational characteristics should induce job
   satisfaction. Furthermore, job tenure is the most basic indicator of
   satisfaction (Bretz & Judge, 1994, pp. 32-33.)

An additional source of job dissatisfaction and role stress can be the lack of authority. Because of the nature of academic work, the qualifications of the faculty, the strong presumption of academic freedom (Wolverton, Wolverton, & Gmelch, 1999), and the presence of organized bargaining units at many community colleges, the formal authority of the CAO is often ambiguous. "Although CAOs may have the authority to make a decision, the ultimate power to implement it successfully often depends on the cooperation of faculty and middle managers" (Mech, 1997, p. 291-2).

Added to the role conflict and role ambiguity created by ill-defined work roles and ambiguous authority is the fact that most CAOs receive little or no training before assuming the role (Martin & Samels, 1997; Mech, 1997). Even graduates of higher education graduate programs complain that their preparation is overly theoretical and that they lack the skills to perform the actual duties of the position (Townsend & BassoppoMoyo, 1997).

Despite the lack of clarity surrounding the duties, responsibilities, and authority of the CAO, the importance of the position is unambiguous. Vaughan (1990) states that chief academic officers are

   responsible for the instructional program; these individuals are at the
   center of what is ultimately of greatest importance to the community
   college, teaching and learning. Deans of instruction also occupy that
   middle ground where many of the tensions of the college come together,
   where daily battles are fought: administrative concerns versus faculty
   concerns; student services concerns versus instructional concerns;
   financial concerns for non-instructional activities versus financial
   concerns for instruction; division chair concerns versus presidential
   concerns; and the list goes on. (p. 19)

Moreover, the arena in which the chief academic officer now must play includes a large set of constituencies and players, all with demands of their own. Now more than in the past, CAOs must consider and confront legislative and legal mandates, greater student demands for a consumer friendly education, complex and uncertain funding issues, and enrollment management concerns. Whereas once the position could be filled by a Cincinnatus who would return to his plowshare after his or her term of duty, it now requires an individual with considerable political, social, financial, and legal knowledge. Consequently, "there is a growing consensus that the position of chief academic officer can no longer be defined by a succession of skilled amateurs rotating out of their faculties for short periods of time" (Martin & Samels, 1997, p. 15).

Even to a casual observer, the lack of clearly stated job duties and ambiguous authority would suggest the position of CAO is potentially rife with role conflict and role ambiguity. High levels of role stress have deleterious consequences on both an individual's and an organization's effectiveness. Moreover, when the individual is an administrator, the effects can have a ripple effect throughout the organization. In fact, according to Whetten and Whetten (1985), "the most powerful predictor of organizational effectiveness in colleges and universities is administrative behavior. Results from ... research show that administrators are more important than environment, structure, age, institution type, and control in accounting for performance" (pp. 35-36).

Administrators suffering role conflict and role ambiguity can strongly affect the organizational effectiveness. "Role conflict and ambiguity are detrimental to a manager's performance and satisfaction, because they produce job-related tensions and dissatisfaction in individuals. Low productivity, poor quality work, excessive turnover, and difficult employee relations are organizational symptoms of role conflict or ambiguity" (Mech, 1997, p. 284). Moreover, "above normal levels of role conflict are associated with coping behaviors that prove dysfunctional for the organization because these mechanisms lead to significant decision-making difficulty and overall ineffectiveness" (Wolverton, Wolverton, & Gmelch, 1999, p. 82). Furthermore, numerous researchers have demonstrated that a dissatisfied college administrator can have injurious effects on morale as a result of administrative ineffectiveness (Atkins & Hageseth, 1991; Hill & French, 1967; Madron, Craig, & Mendel, 1967). When the tensions become too great for the administrator to bear or the administrator's ineffectiveness creates an intolerable organizational climate, the administrator will leave either voluntarily or involuntarily.

Turnover is also quite costly to an institution both economically and in terms of lost opportunities. In a study of all levels of college and university administration, Glick noted that personnel changes in managerial positions can cost an organization "from five to twenty-five times an employee's monthly salary" (Glick, 1992, p. 627). When calculating the cost of such changes, Cano and Miller (1992) point out "the negative effects of job turnover on organizations may include increased costs to recruit, select, and train new employees; demoralization of remaining employees; negative public relations; disruption of day-to-day activities; decreased organizational opportunities to pursue growth strategies" (p. 9).

Although no reported study focuses directly on job turnover exclusively among two-year community college chief academic officers, some literature on job satisfaction or role stress among both two-year and four-year college administrators in general does exist from which some relevant findings can be extrapolated. For example, Glick (1992) found that job dissatisfaction among four-year college CAOs did result in frequent turnover. Moreover, in studies of other academic employee groups, researchers have found that individuals who experience role conflict or role ambiguity often express job dissatisfaction (Carroll, 1976; McBride, Munday, & Tunnell, 1992; Wolverton, Wolverton, & Gmelch, 1999). Job dissatisfaction is positively correlated with voluntary turnover in U.S. colleges and universities (Chieffo, 1991; Glick, 1992; McBride, Munday, & Tunnell, 1992; Milosheff, 1990).

The literature is somewhat divided on whether role ambiguity or role conflict contribute more to job dissatisfaction for administrators. Chieffo (1991) cited research findings indicating that "role ambiguity--explained 47% of the variance in organizational commitment levels" (p. 16) for community college administrators. Murray and Murray (1998), in a national study of community college chairpersons, found that chairpersons reported high levels of role ambiguity, but it had only a minimal affect on their propensity to leave the institution. On the other hand, McBride, Munday, and Tunnell (1992) in a study of community college faculty from 11 southern states claimed, "the propensity to leave is influenced by role conflict to greater extent than it is by role ambiguity" (p. 162).

Research has also demonstrated that a connection exists between role stress and job dissatisfaction for academic administrators (Austin & Gamson, 1983; Cano and Miller, 1992; Cavenar, Dill & Bethune, 1987; Hageseth & Atkins, 1988; Jackson & Schuler, 1995; Keller, 1975; Krayer, 1987; Simpson, 1984; Singleton, 1987; Wolverton, Wolverton, & Gmelch, 1999). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that increased job dissatisfaction among community college chief academic officers is just as likely to lead to job turnover as it does in other managerial positions.

Method

After consulting the relevant literature, several survey instruments were selected for use in this study to accomplish the research objectives which were as follows: a) to obtain a demographic profile of CAOs, b) to determine their levels of job satisfaction, as well as any plans for leaving their present institutions, and c) their perceptions of the roles they fulfill at their institutions. The instrumentation included a job satisfaction-dissatisfaction scale adapted from Wood (1973), a propensity to leave index adapted from Lyons (1967), and a role perception questionnaire adapted from Rizzo, House, and Litzman (1970). These instruments have been used by several researchers and have been found to be statistically reliable and valid (Cano & Miller, 1992; McBride, Munday & Tunnell, 1992). Wood (1973, 1976) reported test-retest reliability coefficients for the composite scales ranging from 0.79 to 0.98 for the job satisfaction-dissatisfaction instrument. A panel of experts and a factor analysis were used by Wood to determine construct validity. The role perception questionnaire adapted from Rizzo, House, and Litzman (1970) "has been psychometrically verified across a broad range of studies" and "recent studies have validated both the stability and the reliability of the constructs (Wolverton, Wolverton, & Gmelch, 1999 p. 84). Schuler (1975), using Cronbach's alpha, reported that the internal reliabilities were 0.85 for role conflict and 0.84 for role ambiguity.

The researchers purchased from the Association American Community Colleges a set of mailing labels containing the names and addresses of the chief academic officers (CAOs) of all U.S. community colleges. Using a random numbers table, 250 of the approximately 1000 U. S. publicly supported community colleges were selected to receive the survey. A packet containing a cover letter, the survey instruments, and a stamped, self-addressed envelope was mailed in May 1998 to the selected two-year colleges, and after three weeks non-respondents were sent a second copy of the instruments. The researchers over-sampled the population to insure an acceptable return rate. A total of 120 (48.0%) completed surveys were returned. Minitab, a statistical software package, was used to enter the data and to perform the necessary statistical manipulations.

Results

The average age of the respondents was 52.9, the median age was 53.0, and the standard deviation was 5.48. Table 1 reveals that 59.8% of community college CAOs are males, 74.1% earn $70,000 or more annually, and 68.4% hold a doctoral degree with 34.2% of these holding an Ed.D. Table 2 shows that the CAOs had a mean of 8.1 and a median of 6.0 years with a standard deviation of 7.3 years of full time teaching experience before assuming a CAO position. Table 3 shows that the CAOs had a mean of 11.1 and a median of 10.0 years with a standard deviation of 7.3 years non-CAO administrative experience and a mean of 6.2 and a median of 4.0 CAO experience. Table 4 reveals that over half (55.6%) have held their current CAO position less than 5 years, with only 12.8% having been CAO at the same institution for 10 or more years.

Table 2 Years of Full Time Teaching Experience before Assuming a CAO Position

                        N     Mean   Median    SD
In two-year college    117     6.8      5.0   6.7
In four-year college   117     1.2      0.0   3.4
Total                  117     8.1      6.0   7.3

Table 3 Years of Full-Time Administrative Experience

                       N     Mean    Median    SD

Non CAO experience    115    11.1      10.0   7.3
Total years CAO       117     6.2       4.0   5.4

Table 4 Years in Current CAO Position

             N       %

Under 5      65    55.6
5-9          37    31.6
10-14         9     7.7
15-19         2     1.7
20 & over     4     3.4
Total       117

Responses to 14 role ambiguity and role conflict survey items were based on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 representing never experiencing ambiguity or conflict and 5 representing experiencing either ambiguity or conflict nearly all the time. Seven statements involved role conflict, and seven involved role ambiguity. The statements were alternated in the role perception section of the questionnaire. For role conflict (odd-numbered statements describing conflicted circumstances), response averages with values from 1.0 to 2.5 were considered low, values from 2.6 to 3.5 were considered moderate, and values from 3.6 to 5.0 were considered high. For role ambiguity (even-numbered statements describing ambiguous circumstances), response averages with values from 1.0 to 2.5 were considered low, values from 2.6 to 3.5 were considered moderate, and values from 3.6 to 5.0 were considered high. A single mean for each of role conflict and role ambiguity was calculated by summing the responses to the appropriate survey items. The results are reported in Table 5, which indicate that 78.5 % of the CAOs in this study perceived low levels of role ambiguity with only 21.6% perceiving medium or high levels. On the other hand, 70.7 % of the CAOs perceived medium or high levels of role conflict and 29.2% perceived low levels.

[TABULAR DATA 5 NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]

Respondents were asked to use a Likert scale of 1 to 6, with 1 being low satisfaction and 6 being high satisfaction, to rate their satisfaction with 68 items relating to 10 job factors. These 10 job factors included the work itself, interpersonal relations, achievement, responsibility, recognition, supervision, working conditions, policy and administration, growth, and salary. Means were calculated to obtain a single measure for each satisfaction factor. Response averages with values from 1.0 to 2.5 were considered dissatisfied, values from 2.6 to 4.5 were considered neutral, and values from 4.6 to 6.0 were considered satisfied. The response to overall job satisfaction was based on a single question: "Consider all aspects of your job as a chief academic officer and indicate your overall level of job satisfaction or dissatisfaction." The results are reported in Table 6. The respondents reported being most satisfied with the work itself, interpersonal relations, policy and administration, and the recognition they receive. The respondents reported being least satisfied with salary, but even here the overall satisfaction was relatively high. Overall, 82.6 % of the two-year college CAOs who responded to the questionnaire reported that they were satisfied with their current position.

[TABULAR DATA 6 NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]

The propensity to leave the institution was measured based on responses to two questionnaire items that inquired about each respondent's desire to stay in the position at that institution or move on to another institution. For each item, respondents used a rating scale of 1 to 5, with 1 representing the lowest propensity to leave and 5 the highest. Response means with values from 1.0 to 2.5 were considered low propensity to leave, values from 2.6 to 3.5 were considered moderate propensity to leave, and values from 3.6 to 5.0 were considered high propensity to leave. The data indicated that 13.7 % reported a high propensity to leave, 19.7% reported a moderate propensity to leave, and 66.7% reported a low propensity to leave. The mean value for the propensity to leave was 2.18 with a standard deviation of 1.22, indicating a low propensity-to-leave level overall. Whereas 12.9 % of the respondents indicated that they would prefer not to work at their present college if they were completely free to choose, 37.7% indicated that they would likely look for a new job in the next three to five years.

To determine the career goals of the CAOs, the respondents were asked to select three career options from a list of 10 and rank them 1 to 3 with 1 being the most preferred career option. The overwhelming first choice of the CAOs responding to this national study is a presidency, with 40 (34.2%) preferring the presidency of their present college and 33 (28.2%) preferring the presidency at another college. A distant third is retirement with 19 (16.2%) indicating it was their first choice. These choices accounted for 78.6 % of the first choices. Of the other first choices, 12.8% want to remain a chief academic officer at a community college (with a slight majority preferring a larger community college).

The results,were tabulated by counting the number of times a particular career choice was listed in the top three by respondents. Those positions most frequently appearing in the top three rankings were presidency at another college (21.5%), presidency at this college (18.3%), and retirement (17.0 %). This suggests that most respondents believe that the CAOs position is what Vaughan (1989) called the "pathway to the presidency." It also suggests that researchers should pay greater attention to this position because it does appear that CAOs view this position to be a stepping-stone to the presidency. If, in fact, it is the career pathway to the presidency, then the CAO position is on-the-job preparation for the presidency.

Discussion

Overall, the CAOs who responded to this survey reported high levels of job satisfaction and a low propensity to leave their institutions. Considering all that has been written regarding the difficulty of being a CAO (for example, Martin & Samels, 1997; Mech, 1997), this finding bears further investigation. Moreover, 81.1% indicated that they would prefer to continue working at their present institution. Nevertheless, despite a remarkable high level of job satisfaction and a strong preference for remaining at their institution, 37.7 % indicated that they would likely seek a new position within three to five years.

A possible explanation for the high levels of job satisfaction despite the claims found in the literature regarding the difficulty of the job might be found in the culture of community colleges. The literature about the CAO's position and its conflicts and demands primarily deals with four-year institutions. There may be significant differences in leadership and culture between four-year and two-year colleges. A possible explanation for the apparent discrepancy between the desire to remain at the college and the likelihood of seeking a new position is that CAOs realize that the opportunity to become a president at their own institution is not likely. The institution may have an entrenched sitting president or a history of selecting succeeding presidents from outside the institution. Both of these possible explanations deserve further study.

An examination of the demographics from this randomly selected national sample reveals that 87.2% have been CAOs for less than 10 years and 55.6% have been CAOs for less than 5 years at their present institution. This finding supports those of McKenney and Cejda (in press) who reported that a national study of community college CAOs found the mean tenure to be 6.4 years with a standard deviation of 5.35. They also reported that 80 % of the CAOs had been in office 9 years or less with 40% having served 4 years or less. This suggests that the tenure of a CAO is relatively short. Although, this study did not reveal any explanation for the short tenure, this finding may point to a potential problem for community colleges. Rapid turnover of high-level administrators can be expensive, create morale problems with faculty, cause institutions to miss opportunities, and stall or thwart on-going initiatives.

The CAOs responding to this study reported low levels of role ambiguity and medium to high levels of role conflict. This is the opposite of findings for community college division chairpersons. Murray and Murray (1998) in a national study of community college chairpersons found that chairpersons reported high levels of role ambiguity and relatively low levels of role conflict. The difference might be explained by the fact that chief academic officers have distanced themselves more from the faculty and have a clearer perception of their role definitions. On the other hand, being in the middle between the president and the academic professionals may create conflict in trying to balance the financial assets of the college with the desires of the academic professionals.

Overall this study found that community college CAOs express satisfaction with their jobs although they do experience some role conflict. The data collected also indicate that most CAOs wish to stay in administration and most desire to be a community college president. It appears that incumbents view the CAO position as training ground for the presidency. Potentially the most disconcerting finding is the tenure of the CAO at an institution is relatively short. However, without knowing why individuals leave the institution or the long-term effects on the institution and its faculty, it is difficult to determine just how detrimental such turnover is to a community college. If individuals are leaving to further career ambitions the effects may not be deleterious. However, if individuals are leaving because of the stress and strains of the position, then community college presidents and trustees need to consider ways to reduce the stress and graduate preparation programs need to develop curricula that better prepare future administrators for the challenging tasks that face them.

References

Atkins, S., & Hageseth, J. (1991). The academic chairperson: Leading faculty is like herding cats. The Journal of Staff& Organization Development, 9, 29-35.

Austin, A. E., & Gamson, Z. F. (1983). Academic workplace: New demands, heightened tensions. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Research Report No. 10. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education.

Bretz Jr., R. D., & Judge, T. A. (1994). Person-organization fit and the theory of work adjustment: Implications for satisfaction, tenure, and career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44, 32-54.

Birnbaum, R. (1992). How academic leadership works: Understanding success and failure in the college presidency.. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Carroll, A. B. (1976). The role conflict phenomenon: Implications for department chairpersons and academic faculty. Improving College and University Teaching, 24, 245-246.

Cano, J., & Miller, G. (1992). An analysis of job satisfaction and job satisfier factors among six taxonomies of agricultural education teachers. Journal of Agricultural Education, 33, 9-16.

Cavenar, M. G., Dill, D. D., & Bethune, S. B. (1987). Factors influencing job satisfaction and retention among faculty members at schools of nursing offering the Ph.D. degree. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 284 498)

Chieffo, A. M. (1991). Factors contributing to job satisfaction and organizational commitment of community college leadership teams. Community College Review, 19(2), 15-24.

Glick, N. L. (1992). Job satisfaction among academic administrators. Research in Higher Education, 33, 625-639.

Hageseth, J. A., & Atkins, S. (1988). Assessing faculty quality of life. In J. Kurfliss, L. Hilsen, S. Kahn, M. D. Sorcinelli, and R. Tiberius (Eds.), To improve the academy: Resources for student, faculty, and institutional development, No. 7(pp. 109-120).

Hill, W. W., & French, W. L. (1967). Perceptions of power of the department chairmen by professors. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2, 548-574.

Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1985). A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 36, 16-78.

Keller, R. T. (1975). Role conflict and ambiguity. Personnel Psychology, 28, 57-64.

Krayer, K. J. (1987). Using training to reduce role conflict and ambiguity. Training and Development Journal, 40, 49-52.

Lyons, T. F. (1967). A study of social-psychological variables as they relate to turnover, propensity to leave, and absenteeism among hospital staff nurses (doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1967). Dissertation Abstracts International, 28, 3510B.

Madron, T. W., Craig, R., & Mendel, R. M. (1976). Department morale as a function of the perceived performance of department heads. Research in Higher Education, 5, 83-94.

Martin J., & Samels, J. E. (1997). First among equals.' The role of the chief academic officer. Baltimore & London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

McBride, S. A., Munday, R. G., & Tunnell, J. (1992). Community college faculty job satisfaction and propensity to leave. Community/Junior College Quarterly, 16, 157-165.

McKenney, C. B., & Cejda, B. D. (In press). A profile of chief academic officers in public community colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice.

Milosheff, E. (1990). Factors contributing to job satisfaction at the community college. Community College Review, 18(1), 12-22.

Mech, T. F. (1997). The managerial roles of chief academic officers. The Journal of Higher Education, 68, 282-98.

Murray, J. P., & Murray, J. I. (1998). Job satisfaction and the propensity to leave an institution among two-year college division chairpersons. Community College Review, 25(4), 45-59.

Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., and Litzman S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Journal, 51, 150-163.

Schuler, R. S. (1975). Role perceptions, satisfaction and performance: A partial reconciliation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(6), 683-687.

Simpson, W. (1984). Division heads and role strain perception. Community College Review, 12(1), 21-26.

Singleton, B. S. (1987). Sources and consequences of role conflict and role ambiguity among department chairs. Capstone Journal of Education, 7, 39-50.

Townsend B. K., & Bassoppo-Moyo, S. (1997). The effective community college academic administrators: Necessary competencies and attitudes. Community College Review, 25(2), 41-56.

Vaughan, G. B. (1990). Pathway to the presidency: Community college deans of instruction. Washington, DC: The Community College Press.

Whetten, D.A., & Whetten, K.S. (1985). Administrative effectiveness in higher education. The Review of Higher Education, 9, 35-49.

Wood, O.R. (1973). An analysis of faculty motivation to work in the North Carolina community college system (doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University, 1973). Dissertation Abstracts International, 35, 90lA.

Wood, O. R. (1976). A research project: Measuring job satisfaction of the community college staff. Community College Review, 3, 56-64.

Wolverton, M., Wolverton, M. L., Gmelch, W. H. (1999). The impact of role conflict and ambiguity on academic deans. The Journal of Higher Education, 70(1), 80-106.

John P. Murray is an associate professor of educational leadership at Texas Tech University in Lubbock, [e-mail]

Judy I. Murray is vice president of academic and student affairs at Tomball College in Tomball, Texas.

Cliff Summar is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque, New Mexico.