Negotiating the Paradox: Adjuncts & Writing

  • 02 Sep 2009 /  adjuncts, funding, writing

    This week we’ve got a rare perspective on the question of adjuncts and writing: a brief interview with a university president who is also a former adjunct. Alan Walker is president of Upper Iowa University. He’s a former (and long term) adjunct—and president of a school who uses adjuncts extensively. Alan was gracious enough to answer a few questions with us about his experience, and about his perspective on adjuncts and writing.

    AA: Where were you an adjunct and for how long? 

    Alan Walker: I’ve been an adjunct on an intermittent basis for credit and noncredit (i.e., continuing education) programs at several postsecondary higher educational organizations since 1982. My first experience was with the Idaho State Division of Vocational Education. I also taught as an adjunct for Louisiana State University, University of Missouri, Arkansas Technical University, and Western Michigan University.

    AA: Did you publish during that time?

    Alan Walker: Yes, between 1991 and 1999 I produced 17 articles for journals and conference papers for presentations.

    AA: How supportive were the institutions that employed you?

    Alan Walker: Direct support from the institutions where I worked at the time was minimal, but frankly, I never expected nor sought any. Indirectly, support from the institutions came in the form of participation in professional organizations and attendance at national and international professional conferences.  Such indirect support was important and had a major positive impact.

    AA: What role did your scholarship have in becoming president of UIU?

    Alan Walker: Interesting question, perhaps more aptly answered by those who were on the search committee that made the hiring decision that resulted in my first presidency. It may have played somewhat of a role in the eyes of those on the committee representing the academic constituency that make up a university, but my sense is other factors prevailed such as experience, character, personality, leadership, communications skills, etc.

    AA: UIU employees numerous adjuncts. How do you support these adjuncts as scholars, and what do you hope to do in the future?

    Alan Walker: Unfortunately, I would characterize UIU’s level of support in this area for adjuncts as minimal. My sense is that the support which does exist comes about on an adhoc basis, rather than through a structured and institutionalized program. However, there is potential for expanding initiatives (currently available to full-time faculty) to adjunct faculty, such as the Teaching with Technology grant program, administered by the Office of the President, as well as other faculty development programs.  It’s a question of ramping up resource levels. Resources that support the scholarship of faculty are presently distributed over approximately 60 full-time faculty, and at present, there is more demand than there are resources. The inclusion of adjunct faculty would further spread these limited resources out over an additional 400 adjunct faculty.  Make no mistake, though, our goal should be to maximize opportunities and develop strategies that will help to assimilate all faculty into the University, and specifically, into their respective academic homes within the organizational architecture of UIU. We are presently engaged on accomplishing this with the first full-time faculty who have been recently deployed as part of our academic extension system. Our goal is to expand this assimilation to include adjunct faculty and certainly, one strategy for doing so is to expand programs that support scholarly activity of adjuncts.  To this, I am deeply committed.

    AA: Thank you for your time and your honesty.

    Tags: , ,

  • 05 Jun 2009 /  adjuncts, conferences, funding

    A few weeks ago I commented on how some of the major academic organizations (Modern Language Association [MLA], National Council of Teachers of English [NCTE]) supported adjunct attendance at their conferences, both financially and rhetorically. I decided to return to that topic and contact some of the institutions involved. Since NCTE posted an email address for information about their Professional Equity Project (PEP) on their website.

    Within 12 hours, Kristen Suchor had gotten back to me. (Let me take a moment here to thank the various respondents to my questions. They have been both generous with their time and strikingly quick with their replies.) She told me that the PEP was starting its eighth year. Grants were first given in 2002, building on a resolution that had been passed at the NCTE’s CCCC Annual Business meeting in 2001. (For more on that resolution, visit http://www.ncte.org/cccc/resolutions/2001.) Kristen noted that this wasn’t the only motion calling for organizational support of adjunct involvement.

    When asked about numbers of faculty attending under this program, Kristen replied, “We typically receive between 100 and 150 applicants each year and we fund between 60 and 94 applicants (there are currently 94 grants available each year but we are not always able to give all of the grants away due to last minute cancellations etc).” Kristen estimated about a third of the grantees receive matching funds.

    NCTE doesn’t track how many institutions match funds for attending adjuncts, or why some administrators do so while others don’t. (Kristen did mention that CCCCs asks program administrators for nominations, contacting many of them directly [especially those who are based near that year's convention site].)

    However, Kristen was able to put me in touch with Susan Miller-Cochran at North Carolina State University. (Needless to say, given the first post for this blog, I was amused by this irony.) Once I contacted Professor Miller-Cochran, she explained that NCSU’s First-Year Writing Program started the current policy of funding attendance at CCCCs two years ago. Funds are available for full-time faculty, part-time faculty, and graduate students—and what’s more, funding is available for attendees even if they aren’t presenting (though at a lower level.)

    This policy was started by Nancy Penrose, who preceded Miller-Cochran as Director of the First-Year Writing Program. Miller-Cochran noted, ” She and I both felt that having teachers in our program participate in Cs (either through presenting or just attending) would strengthen the quality of teaching in our program and help our teachers join professional conversations in the field. Since teaching is their sole obligation (as opposed to the research obligation that tenure-track faculty have), I think it’s appropriate to fund them to attend the conference—participation in these conversations enriches teaching and learning in the program.”

    An impressive and enlightened sentiment.

    As far as where the money for this program comes from, several sources come together. Some of it comes from the First-Year Writing Program Trust Fund, which gets its money through donations (including from faculty members who donate textbook royalties!) and sales of an anthology of student writing. Some funds come from NCSU’s Center for Teaching and Learning.

    When asked if what effect this support had on adjunct retention, Miller-Cochran said, “I don’t know that this decision has retained more faculty, although I can say that we’ve had far less turnover in the last two years than we used to have. We’ve also argued for longer contracts, higher salaries, and lower course caps, though—and I think all of these things together help faculty feel more valued.”

    Speaking as an adjunct, I’m willing to go out on a limb and say that yes, this sort of generous treatment is likely related to the lower turnover. I’d also like to note that it is a pleasure to hear of such systematic institutional change. NCSU was always a good place to teach; now it sounds like it might serve as a model for ethical professional action. Bravo!

    Tags: , , , , , , , ,

  • 07 May 2009 /  adjuncts, conferences, funding, publishing

    Scholars on the tenure-track have contextual support to write and publish. In the best positions, this takes the form of course release time and internal grants to fund sabbaticals, research trips, and reflective writing.

    On the other hand, these positions can also carry considerable pressure, as evidenced by the classic phrase “Publish or perish.” In some institutions, this expectation that faculty members will publish—and not just publish but publish on a prestigious level and promptly—and even that books will be reviewed by the time tenure reviews occur. To be frank, this sounds counterproductive (and likely to produce conservative scholarship), but carrot and the stick do create psychic and temporal contexts for scholarly writing.

    Writing without those, adjunct scholars may find themselves working more like creative writers, fitting in writing when they can, and yoking conference trips to vacations in order to afford them. There are, however, some elements of contextual support in place for adjunct scholars.

    For example, the MLA has set aside travel funds for up to 150 “non-tenure track faculty” to attend their 2009 conference. Granted, these awards of $300 each won’t cover all costs of a presentation/job interview trip to Philadelphia…but it is a start, and it is a sign that the MLA is trying to address some of the realities of academic labor. Actually, they may sadly be being too realistic, since those funds are actually intended for “non-tenure-track faculty members and those without employment.”

    Now, you have to join the MLA member to qualify for these funds, which does lend them political power, but it also makes sense: almost all academic conferences require membership to attend. (For more on this opportunity, visit this section of the MLA’s website: http://www.mla.org/resources/awards/award_finasst/assist_nontenure)

    Other organizations are trying something similarly realistic. For example, CCCC (Conference on College Composition and Communication) is the major academic conference on composition (a field that has long used a disproportionately high ratio of adjuncts). CCCC funds a “Professional Equity Project” which gives $310 grants to potential attendees with “part-time or adjunct status.” What’s nice about CCCC’s project is that they make a point of spelling out some of the criteria they’ll use for awarding these grants. One of them is that they’re trying to help people with an ongoing interest in teaching writing; they make it clear that they’re trying to both help you develop professionally and make you part of a professional discipline.

    What’s more, CCCC gives the home colleges of grant recipients an open nudge to match funding, noting that several administrators did so last year. This is both politically savvy as well as a nice and practical touch. Schools that do this would make conferences that much more affordable ($600+ travel money for one conference is fairly generous), and would provide their adjuncts acknowledgement of their achievement—this would help with the entire issue of institutional context. (For more on this opportunity, visit this section of the CCCC website: http://www.ncte.org/cccc/awards/pep)

    Tags: , , , , ,

  • 28 Apr 2009 /  adjuncts, funding, publishing, research

    As I noted last week, many schools don’t have a strong sense that adjuncts write. (Okay, that’s putting it mildly…) As a result, they don’t provide much funding for conference attendance. Actually, that too is putting it mildly. Many schools provide no funds at all to support academic research/writing by adjuncts. Those funds are reserved for full-time faculty. It seems part of the general mindset that adjuncts aren’t real faculty, and/or that they aren’t really part of the institution where they teach.

    However, some schools do support adjunct scholarship both psychologically and financially. These schools are institutions that have reconfigured how they think about academic labor; a number of them accent online education, and expect adjuncts to play a major role in their institutions, and plan accordingly.

    For example, Baker College, whose home campus is in Michigan, has a thriving online program. Officials make funds available to adjuncts on a case-by-case basis for presenting papers at conferences. They also actively solicit research by faculty that relates directly to teaching and/or that would directly benefit Baker students.

    Upper Iowa University makes research funds available to adjuncts. The University of Phoenix provides funds not just for conference presentations, but in the form of honorariums for academic publications. Granted, the $200 for each publication won’t pay the rent or take the place of tenure, but University of Phoenix adjuncts who publish can accumulate up to four of these each year (for publishing or presentations), and that helps buy time to research and write.

    Each of these schools mentioned also supports publications socially/emotionally; school officials publicize papers and/or presentations, and send congratulatory emails.

    The funding policies at some of these schools also reflect a shifting attitude toward academic labor/the academic market in general. That is to say, in addition to supporting research and faculty development, some of these schools speak directly of faculty publications as branding/promoting a school’s brand. For an adjunct who’s also a scholar, the distinction in the short run may be moot; he or she may actually be better served by this more business-like approach to publishing than by attitudes at more traditional schools. In the longer run, this is part of a larger shift in what publication means for academics.

    Tags: , , , , , , ,

Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes