Negotiating the Paradox: Adjuncts & Writing

  • This week we’re shifting focus a bit. Dana S. Dunn is Professor of Psychology at Moravian College in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. Moravian is a small and selective liberal arts college with a long and distinguished history. Professor Dunn has edited several books on pedagogical practices, published scores of articles, and several of his own books, including A Short Guide to Writing about Psychology. Professor Dunn was gracious enough to share his perspective on adjuncts and writing.

    Adjunct Advocate (AA): What specific challenges do adjuncts face when writing?

    Professor Dunn: The most common challenge the adjunct writer faces is discretionary time. Time to reflect. Time to read. And most of all, time to actually write. Multiple courses, which are sometimes taught on multiple campuses, which adds a commuting time, take a toll. So does lecture and discussion preparation and grading. Factoring in some “down” time for family or leisure pursuits (or possibly additional, non-teaching-related work) leaves little time for writing. So, the aspiring writer who is an adjunct must either be or become a whiz at time management. He or she must also learn to make maximum use of small amounts of writing time. For concrete guidance about writing often but in small amounts, I suggest adjunct colleagues consult the very good works of Robert Boice, who researched effective and not-so-effective strategies pursued by new and junior faculty. (AA: Boice is author of books such as Advice for New Faculty Members [2000] and Professors as Writers [1990].)  

    Having a quiet space to write can be a challenge. Adjunct offices are also usually shared by several adjuncts, which means they are a quick way station for students and the adjuncts themselves for before or after class meetings.

    AA: Do you find that adjunct faculty members focus their writing on different areas than tenure track faculty do? Are more or less in touch with current theory?

    Dunn: I can really only speak for psychology, but my guess is that adjuncts are apt to focus on carving out writing projects from their dissertations simply because the primary research has already been done. For writing in new scholarly directions, it may well depend upon the field. Faculty in the humanities, for example, may be able to continue in their intended area of interest if they have access to adequate library or other archival resources. Faculty in the natural sciences and some social sciences (including psychology) really need access to dedicated lab facilities. Unless a college or university is willing to provide such facilities (and few do), adjuncts in those area will be hard pressed to begin or continue original research. One possible solution is to develop a scholarly collaboration with a colleague who has access to a lab or the equivalent or to continue working with one’s graduate mentor (if one exists).

    Keeping in touch with current theory is a matter of reading journals, monitoring or taking part in online discussions, and attending conferences. The first two options are easier than the last, which requires funding. But even the first two are a challenge if you are teaching 3, 4, or 5 courses a term to make ends meet.

    AA: What could interested institutions do to help adjuncts engage in more writing/write and publish more successfully?

    Dunn: I don’t mean to be flip, but for starters such institutions could pay adjunct colleagues more on a per class basis and/or reward longer term adjuncts with use of institutional resources (e.g., copying privileges, secretarial support, paper and other supplies, a place to work).

    Adjuncts can try to orient writing assignments in class to pedagogical outcomes that might be publishable in teaching or pedagogy journals. Interested institutions could run adjunct training workshops devoted to professional development activities (e.g., time management skills, manuscript preparation, negotiating with editors) in addition to teaching strategies. Everyone benefits if graduate students, new faculty, and adjunct faculty all receive guidance preparing for the classroom and professional/scholarly activities.

    AA: Are there writing-related challenges or opportunities that are specific to psychology as a discipline?

    Dunn: Psychology is a science, which means it is driven (largely) by empirical data. Academic psychologists conduct research, which means they need access to research participants, resources to pay for research expenses, and so on. Research is a big undertaking and not for the faint of heart. The chief writing-related challenge is having data or access to data that can be written up into publishable journal articles. Besides empirical articles, of course, psychologists also write theory and review articles, commentary pieces, book reviews, pedagogy and teaching articles, and so on. However, empirical journal articles are the coin of the realm for new and untenured faculty. I would advise an adjunct faculty member in psychology to complete and defend the dissertation at all costs, and then pull out as many empirical articles from it as can be done.

    The article(s) should be placed in as rigorous a journal as possible through the peer review process. I would then counsel the adjunct colleague to network in order to form a collaboration with a colleague or colleagues who has research facilities. The goal is to continue to produce a record of reasonable scholarship (e.g., co-authored papers or chapters, conference presentations) while being an effective adjunct faculty member and continuing to search for a full-time position (if that is the adjunct colleague’s goal).

    AA: Let us shift focus a moment. Is there a benefit to schools and/or administrators to provide the kind of support you suggest for adjuncts? (What might motivate them to do so?)

    The main benefits for creating such support are to (a) develop some institutional loyalty on the part of the adjuncts (i.e., what is to be lost by treating them well?) and (b) markedly improving the experience for our students (i.e., faculty who are treated well and fairly, whether adjunct or full-time, will perform better in the classroom, take their work more seriously, be more conscientious, and so on). Kindness and decency are always good ideas.

    Motivating administrators is, of course, always a challenge, more so now due to the economy. Still, an argument can be made that modest outlays of resources for adjunct colleagues will pay dividends to the institution where reliability, professionalism, and students’ experiences in the classroom are concerned. If nothing else, trying an “experiment” in this vein is probably a good idea. Perhaps encouraging an administration to do a trial run (say, a year or two) where resources for adjuncts is concerned is one way to learn whether it is cost effective and beneficial to the institution. Again, I don’t see any great risks here, although I am sure that some administrators would worry that creating (positive) expectations can be problematic if the (experimental) benefits are later withdrawn. To deal with this problem, I would counsel candor at the start.

    Thanks so much for inviting me to comment. I hope my observations prove to be useful.

    AA: Thank you! Your comments have been very helpful indeed. 

    Tags: , , , , ,

  • 20 May 2009 /  adjuncts, publishing, writing

    Clayton M. Christensen is primarily known for his work on innovation. His books The Innovator’s Dilemma and The Innovator’s Solution are required reading for business innovators (and in many classes), and the phrase “innovator’s dilemma” has passed into general use.

    Christensen recently turned his attention to American public education, applying disruptive innovation theory to the various crisis facing public schools in Disrupting Class: How Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns (2008). While the book focuses on grades K-12 (with one chapter on pre-school), it is fascinating and accessible. It’s useful for its insights, but also at places where those insights fail.

    These qualities intersect when Christensen discusses the ideal educational world he’s arguing for, which is a world of “student-centric learning” placing computers to the center of the learning process so as to create individualized instruction that meets the unique needs of each student.

    Christensen asks and then answers the question “Where do teachers fit in this futuristic classroom?” His answer is that as things like they’ll write things like Virtual ChemLab (http://chemlab.byu.edu/), a simulated science classroom developed at BYU.  Virtual ChemLab is a huge success. It is already used by over 100,000 students (who report it helps them), and won the Pirelli Award for multimedia in education.

    However, put that in context. Virtual ChemLab was developed with money from the Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education and BYU; will those funds be available for every faculty member to create their own material? Or will a few receive these prestigious grants while most fill the other slot Christensen sees as ideal for teachers in student-centric learning: guiding more students? Christensen argues that it is appropriate and desirable for students to interact primarily with these programmed learning opportunities, for teachers to guide, advice, and tutor them—and to do in larger numbers. This sounds sort of like the current world, with adjuncts filling the tutoring roles.

    I do think adjuncts will be doing quite a bit of writing in this world, though, because they already are. They’re doing a lot of what I call invisible writing. They’re writing the study guides put out by companies like SparkNotes, CliffsNotes, and eNotes that students buy by the tens of thousands to help them study…and sometimes take the place of doing the course reading. (They are also writing course outlines, storyboards, quizzes, etc., but more on that anon.)

    Is using these study guides wrong? No, of course not. I used them as an undergraduate. I write them now. They are highly useful aids to scholarship. However, in many of these, the author becomes invisible. Here’s an example. Look up, say, History 101 on Amazon, and you’ll find that “Sparknote editors” are listed as the author. However, on his entry on the H-Net editors directory (http://www.h-net.org/people/editors/show.cgi?ID=125539), Kelly D. McMichael lists himself as author of that book…and if you scroll down a bit further on his site, you’ll see he was an adjunct at two schools at that time.

    It isn’t easy to tell how many of these guides are written by adjuncts, both because they aren’t always given bylines and because the companies don’t always track authors by faculty status. However, I can tell you from personal experience that in addition to genuine scholarly desire, I wrote the study guides I’ve written for the money. As an adjunct I needed it. Writing these guides pays now; traditional scholarship pays later, in the form of tenure. This gives perceived market needs a larger say in scholarship.

    What’s more, because students don’t think of these study guides as written by anyone in particular, the results are sometimes curious. I have had, for example, students cite study guides I’d written back to me. They might do that with a book I’d written under my own name…but not accidentally.

    Adjunct faculty members are already invisible members of many colleges, both there and not there, teaching but not listed except as “staff,” etc. One ongoing trend in academic writing is for them to become invisible as authors and scholars as well. We’ll return to this possibility in future posts…

    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: , , , , ,

Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes