Negotiating the Paradox: Adjuncts & Writing

  • 16 Mar 2010 /  adjuncts, teaching

    Recently I dipped in to the January 11, 2010 edition of the world’s best magazine, I mean, The New Yorker. There I found “After the Blowup,” an essay by John Cassidy about how the various schools of laissez-faire economics are dealing with—or failing to deal with—recent economic crises. As author of How Markets Fail, Cassidy is well-positioned to write such an article. While the article is worthwhile in itself, I mention it primarily as a springboard.

    When Cassidy was talking with Richard Posner, Posner was criticizing academic economists for their lack of realism, and for their failure to learn from the recent events. Posner said,”…market correctives work very slowly in dealing with academic markets. Professors have tenure…They have techniques that they know and are comfortable with.”

    While part of this unintentionally ironic—Posner seems not realize just how many faculty don’t have tenure or the option of pursuing it—the core sentiment is strikingly valid and useful. As I’ve commented on in past posts, the ideal functions of tenure are well-known. They allow academics to follow their own visions, researching long term and/or unpopular projects.

    Posner, though, has articulated one down side to tenure, and to the model of the tenured academic. Once tenured, an academic can solve problems no one else cares about. He or she can continue to embrace theories that events have left behind, or fail to even notice the emergence of difficult counter-examples.

    This could offer an alternative model for the adjunct scholar. Rather than following the private vision, follow the public one. Rather than moving independently of the market, ride its momentum. This might mean writing about brand new books, using new media, and so on. Rather than publishing in academic journals— so long carefully insulated from the economics of publishing— publish…elsewhere. This might mean corporate publishing venues, it might mean artistic non-profits, it might mean community papers, self-publishing, etc. And rather than following one’s own vision and assuming (rather arrogantly and Platonically) that it is right, allow your vision to emerge through interaction, dialogue, and synthesis.

    After all, the current adjunct situation was created through market forces; why not turn them, at least somewhat, to our advantage?

    Tags: , , , ,

  • 09 Mar 2010 /  publishing, tenure, writing

    Let me start with a few minor updates:

    On the plus side, I’ve got some interesting interviews coming up. On the negative/absent side, I still haven’t heard back from many of the folks I’ve contacted about projects related to this blog. On the confusing side, I just joined Facebook, and so will be likely be delving in to this fascinating phenomenon a bit more soon, to see how it might be related to adjuncts and writing.

    Now, on to the core idea, which is a thought experiment grounded in reality. Consider the following: any goal is, among other things, a constraint. Setting tenure as your goal binds you to doing things that will achieve tenure. At most schools, this means focusing your writing on areas you were hired for. At even more schools, this means doing work which is recognized as scholarly.

    If that’s the sort of work you want to do, so far, so good. I have known many scholars who seem born to devote their lives to X (American literature, Latin poetry, etc.), and others who seem at great ease tracking down every last reference on a topic. I have long envied the first their certainty, and the second their sense of appropriate process. Completeness is a good thing.

    However, what if this is not the sort of work you want to do? What if you are exploratory? What if your values lead you outside of established forms and topics? What if you simply change? In those cases, the pursuit of tenure becomes a kind of constraint. Again, I’m not railing against constraint per se—Jane Austen would have my head—but simply put, there are times when it is better to pursue the new path than walk the one that no longer calls you. At that point, the tenure path becomes too much of a constraint…and being an adjunct who writes may emerge as a form of freedom.

    This is not a freedom born of abandon. I’m not suggesting that if you don’t pursue tenure, you will do slipshod work. I’m suggesting that releasing that goal may allow one to explore new media. It may allow one’s writing to appear immediately online and begin a multiplying influence that will come slowly, if ever, to those publishing in academic venues. Writing on new topics may allow one to be first, simply because the new media democratizing publishing allows one to share freely without the ponderous process of peer review.

    And it isn’t that tenured faculty can’t do these things. They can…but they are anchored into an existing system. They’ve been rewarded for working known fields. They are invested, even as they are protected.

    In some ways, writing without tenure allows the return of the intrinsic reward. One no longer has to seek conference presentations or journal acceptance. One can simply write.

    The flip side of reward is freedom. (Now, we still have to pay the bills…but that’s another question. Academic writing was never going to pay the bills anyway.)

    Tags: , ,

  • 02 Mar 2010 /  adjuncts, tenure, writing

    In between these actual posts about writing and adjuncts, the subject is always simmering in the back of my mind. What is the relationship? What should the relationship be? How does one affect the other? What is the place of tenure in this equation?

    Some gloriously impractical ideas for posts bubble up, pop, and, thankfully (trust me on this one) evaporate, leaving only the faint scent of l’eau de brainstorm behind. However, some leave traces that might be useful; I’ll offer them up and we’ll see.

    The stated purpose of tenure is protection of academic freedom: professors who have proven their worth as scholars and/or teachers have shown earn job security. As a result, they are free to pursue their research wherever their training, conscience, and creativity may lead them. The image this ideal evokes is of the solitary thinker, standing up for what he or she thinks is right, speaking out and speaking up, despite the overt disapproval of the administration, whose hands are tied, and even of the surrounding community. This vision of tenure fits with the best elements of the ivory tower: protected and above it all, in order to see more clearly.

    Tenure can also be viewed as a form of cultural capital, a stamp of social approval that is given to some but not all. This imprimatur amplifies the individual’s voice, giving his or her positions greater weight, silencing some critics and making others at least listen to one’s positions. In this tenure enables your writing more efficacy. Finally, tenure gives stability. It requires a time investment from the faculty, and, once acquired, tends to anchor faculty in place. This is fraught with potential negatives, but it has the benefit of creating a fairly stable identity for the school.

    Adjuncts lack these (closely related) qualities. Not only are controversial opinions not protected, they are actively at risk. The most recent adjunct contract I signed indicated that the school in question “reserves the right to withdraw or cancel any course for any reason that it, at its sole discretion, deems appropriate.”

    So…instead of tenure, what options would protect academic freedom? What could be done to give adjuncts’ writing more weight and power? (We’ll leave aside the issue of a school’s stable identity for now. It interests me greatly, but isn’t really the subject of this blog.)

    One suggestion put forth for high school teachers is simply getting rid of tenure all together (and paying more money) This works to make the system less stable (in good ways—it can get rid of bad teachers), but to be frank, won’t help most adjuncts at all. It would ask schools to spontaneously pay them more…with no reason. We already work for cheap.

    Another option is writing under a pen name. The practice has a long history, and an honorable one. It’s already pretty common in academia, where folks like Thomas H. Benton write for publications as influential and mainstream as The Chronicle of Higher Education under pen names. Doing so takes care of protection and the academic freedom, and even adds the allure of being a secret rebel, but removes the power of the tenured pen.

    A third option is simply to ignore the administration/school. The people who might get mad about your writing are waaay too busy to keep tabs on you. Write whatever the heck you want. They won’t know unless someone brings it to their attention. And then you’re one screwed adjunct. This works for an unfortunately undefined time, which will be much longer if you’re working in non-controversial areas. It also works only for the academic freedom element of tenure, and does nothing to provide cultural capital.

    A fourth option requires political involvement/some negotiation. To be more specific, adjuncts can push for colleges to spell out the reasons they might be discharged (rather than making contracts at will), push for full year contracts, push for monetary compensation for all publications, and so on. Doing so may blow away the remnants of collegiality from the working relationships and expose it for the labor situation it is, but hey. It’s rarely comfortable to analyze things too close to home, but it is useful, and any gains won here would protect academic freedom for adjuncts far more than it is protected now.

    I find this avenue of thought useful, and I hope you do too; I’ll be returning to it in future posts, with more possibilities.

    Tags: , , , , ,

  • 09 Jul 2009 /  adjuncts, publishing, tenure

    I’ve avoided opening the discussion about how adjuncts can earn tenure because opening the tenure discussion often seems like opening a wound that never heals. It is actually easier to ask adjunct faculty members about what they earn and get straight answers than it is to open the discussion of who gets tenure and why without having it dissolve into bitter commentary, even flame wars. (To get a taste of these, visit The Chronicle’s forums on tenure track topics.) Nevertheless, since institutions depend so heavily on academic publications when making decisions for hiring and tenure, the discussion has to be opened and returned to. This week, I’m not going to be able to do much more than open the discussion, frame the issue, and sketch out some of the key talking points.

    Start, then, with the premise and the issue: traditionally, academic publications have been the coin of the realm in academia. To obtain a tenure-track position, one must publish. Primarily, one must publish in accepted scholarly journals of appropriate prestige and focus for your school and discipline. To facilitate those acts of scholarship, tenured faculty at research institutions receive time off from teaching, travel funds, etc.

    The tenure process at schools emphasizing teaching is different; teaching and community service receive considerable weight for tenure decisions. However— and here’s the issue— the academic labor market has shifted. Increasingly, positions are filled by adjuncts who are paid far less than tenure-track faculty. Most adjuncts are not eligible for course release or institutional fellowships, and so have less time for scholarship. Those who would prefer to teach at a small liberal arts school and focus on teaching find such positions tougher to land. A shift in academic hiring processes means that even these schools use adjuncts more frequently, and a crowded labor market means more applicants for those few positions. Academic writing becomes valued more highly at those schools as well, even if it is just as a way to sort the initial applicants.

    Adjuncts who want to become tenured faculty members therefore find themselves square in the middle of several dilemmas. They have less time to write than tenure-track faculty, but must compete with them for shrinking resources. They get less money for research, but…see above. A third dilemma external to academia is that publishing in general is mutating ferociously, even, to borrow a term from Calvin and Hobbes, transmogrifying.

    Add to that several factors. First, outdated attitudes about academics persist. For example, when I mentioned a concern about the job market to one of my graduate school advisors, she waved a hand and said, “Cream will rise.” Perhaps—if it doesn’t spoil due to improper handling. (A useful webpage on obtaining tenure contains a cartoon summing up common attitudes towards the distinction made between tenured and non-tenured. It’s nice because of the “The Lady or the Tiger” blindness with which academic choices must be made.) Another of these persistent attitudes, one that’s less insulting but perhaps as dangerous, is treating the tenure track as a pipeline. As the metaphor suggests, content (faculty) enter at one end (when hired) and leave from the other end (when tenured). Those who leave the pipeline disrupt the system. As “Dispelling the Pipeline Myth,” by Wolfinger, Mason, and Goulden shows, women are more likely to leave the pipeline due to having or caring for children, and so the system is gender-biased.

    Second, many schools won’t hire their adjuncts to the tenure-track. Third, what counts for tenure, and what is considered enough to earn tenure, varies from department to department, discipline to discipline, and school to school. When these factors are combined, the issue becomes complex indeed. I assume that people will be staying in the same disciplines as they attempt to move from adjunct to tenured faculty, but since they won’t be staying the same school or department, that means essentially trying to guess at standards from a distance. Yes, all applicants have to do this initially, but given the fractured attention of the adjunct, it seems markedly harder. How can you track the institutional culture at a new school for the signs that it’s the right place to seek tenure when you’re trying to track cultures at three schools already to see if you’ll be able to pay rent next month?

    I suspect that our contextual pressures puts all sorts of pressures on adjuncts as writers. For example, I suspect we write shorter pieces rather than longer, and pursue short-term research rather than long-term, precisely because of the organizational challenges involved and simply not knowing if we’ll be in the same place next semester or not. However, those are areas that can be followed up on through research. For now, I want to close by pointing readers to a few online conversations about who get tenure (found here, here, and here), and then to some tools for those seeking tenure.

    Getting Tenure collects a number of useful tools for those seeking tenure (and it’s nice to see this coming out of Geoscience.)

    This page collects a number of documents offering advice.

    Adventures in Ethics and Science shares thoughts on (and pictures of) a tenure dossier.

    And we’ll definitely return to this painful point in the future.

    Tags: , ,

Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes