Letters to the Editor
Adjunct Faculty in the Sciences
The Jan./Feb. 2002 issue of the Adjunct Advocate seems to have discovered many scientists in adjunct appointments and launched a campaign against their exploitation. But nowhere in the issue did I note a definition of “adjunct,” whose divergent uses include short-term or part-time appointments, unsalaried courtesy appointments, appointments in Department A of tenured professors in Department B who teach courses of interest to A, and yet other uses. One article speaks confidently of an adjunct scientist who spends between 50 and 70 hours a week on research
and “presumably teaches as well” — or, presumably, does not.
Surely, a magazine with the name Adjunct Advocate should know,
and explain to its readers, exactly for whom it is advocating.
The issue equates fundamentally different academic employment
scenes in the humanities and sciences. In the humanities, the
primary cleavage is between a) full-time, tenure-track faculty who
teach and engage in scholarship and b) insecure, full- or part-time
nontenure-track teaching faculty. A comprehensive term for the latter segment is faculty with “contingent” appointments.
In the sciences, the primary cleavage is between tenure-track
faculty appointments on hard money (relatively reliable income
from state appropriations, endowment income, and tuition) and annual or project-term research appointments on soft money (less reliable income from government and private research grants and contracts). Among advanced graduate students, postdocs, and more experienced research scientists, the central academic employment issue is not the low-wage, low-benefit, part-time teaching appointment so common in the humanities but the lack of security,
of professional recognition and independence, perhaps even of the
right to submit research proposals and to serve as principal investigator.
The situation of university scientists and humanists differs because
their tasks, funding sources, and employment alternatives differ. The issue’s failure to recognize this virtually vitiates its value.
– Harold Orlans, Bethesda, MD
AdjunctNation.com
I just read an e-mail from our Director of Honors and Faculty Development pointing the way to AdjunctNation.com. I am pleased
that someone has taken up the cause of a group that is fast-growing and much in need. It goes without saying that those of us covered under the term “adjunct” or “part-time,” etc…, as well as our needs, are as diverse as the general population itself.
There have been times during my career when I have felt frustrated and alone in my work because of my particular situation. I am an adjunct music teacher at several colleges in the Columbia, S.C. area and love my work, but hate the insecurity. I have started a fund for my retirement and am now researching institutions for a health plan (I am recently divorced, and was on my spouse’s plan). These things that my friends and colleagues take for granted weigh heavily for me.
I didn’t see anything on health care at the Web site — I would think
that you get inquiries about this. I will be checking the Web site often for news and information that I find useful and interesting. Thanks
– Alan Knight, South Carolina
Call for Information
My name is Julie Sandland, and I am an instructor of English
at North Dakota State University. My fourteen colleagues and I are
referred to as “lecturers” in our department, to distinguish us from
the tenure-track faculty with Ph.D.s. Most of us are M.A.s; two
of us have M.F.A.s. We are currently researching for models that
are in place for improving the work conditions of adjuncts in state universities across the US. I found a wonderful model at Rider’s University, for instance, but I have had a hard time finding other universities with plans of action. Any help/suggestions would be greatly appreciated. My e-mail is: Julie.Sandland@ndsu.nodak.edu.
Thank you very much
– Julie Sandland, North Dakota State
University, ND
Going the Distance
Pressure on the university to reconfigure course production is also
stimulated by the rise of on-line education itself. On-line education allows students to choose from a wide variety of universities. Students are no longer restricted by geography. Increased choice for students leads, in turn, to competition. No longer is competition between universities limited to the universities
located in the same city/town/ region. Competition will force universities to look for ways to improve the quality of their courses, and lower costs. While this has long been the objective of university administration, exposure to the harsh realities of an unregulated education marketplace (brought on by technology) may inspire new strategies for achieving this objective
(This may be particularly relevant in countries like Canada, where
universities have been largely protected from market forces).
Finally, the pressures to adopt new models of content development
in higher education may arrive quietly, under the radar, and most forcefully, as a result of the aforementioned shift from the classroom to the on-line environment. Once education assumes this tangible form, it is inevitable that institutions — both nonprofit and for-profit — begin to treat it like other modern goods and services.
Education analyst Stephen Downes likens the future of on-line
education to the modern grocery store. The overwhelming choices we face in the breakfast cereal aisle could potentially be replicated in education (Count Chocula with or without extra marshmallows?). Students and educators could potentially have access to the kind of choices we normally experience grocery
shopping. Of course, nothing could be more terrifying to our educational institutions; having to compete with so many other institutions would require a transformation of the university. It’s difficult at this point to predict the value to the student of such an arrangement. However, a more modest shift can provide great benefits. If we take steps to rationalize the production of our courses and course materials by implementing a division of labor, and sharing resources with other universities, we can improve the overall quality of education.
– Dr. Keith Christopher Hampson,
Ryerson University, Canada
