Search results

The underrepresentation of African-American faculty in the US professoriate has persisted for some time. Relatedly, adjunct faculty remain a fast-growing sector of the professoriate. Adjunct faculty include “experts” and “specialists” who teach postsecondary courses with a narrow focus and with content tailored to their full-time employment. Using a qualitative narrative approach, I delineate ways I construct meaning for myself as a part-timer. I develop a cultural interpretation of adjunct teaching that provides alternative view of professional socialization to counter the ongoing challenge of increasing the number of Black faculty in higher education. In doing so, three themes from the data (ideal worker as adjunct, historical role models, and clinical value of course content) suggest the identity of part-time faculty is situated in personal, professional, and cultural experiences.

A recent study considered the extent of workplace bullying in four-year colleges and universities (Hollis, 2015a). However, as 60% of all community college employees (faculty and staff) are represented by collective bargaining (Berry, Savarese, & Boris, 2012), no studies consider the impact of labor unions on the extent of workplace bullying at community colleges and the impact on people of color in labor unions.

Guided by a theory on social responsibility espoused by Dawkins (2010), this study considered a sample of 142 community colleges through a correlation analysis to reveal that 67% of those who belong to unions are subject to workplace bullying, 3% higher than the general population reporting their experiences in relationship to workplace bullying at community colleges. Further, 76% of people of color in unions also are affected by workplace bullying in community colleges. In contrast, 68% of people of color not in unions are affected by bullying.

Although the organizational practice of using “contingent or non-traditional workers” has been escalating since the mid-1980s, only recently has research begun to focus on the consequences of this practice. In unionized workplaces, labor leaders have begun to organize these workers. Although it is believed that contingent workers are responding positively to union organizing drives, little is known about the attitudes and behaviors of contingent workers as union members. Using the Union Commitment scale developed by Gordon, Philpot, Burt, Thompson and Spiller (1980), the research project reported here compares the Union Commitment of traditional faculty and three categories of adjunct faculty. The results reveal that there are no significant differences across these employee groups for the factors of Union Loyalty, Responsibility to the Union, Willingness to Work for the Union and Alienation from the Union. The implications of these findings for research and practice are discussed.

Over the past several decades, there has been a growth in nonstandard professional work. One area where this can be seen is the academy, where tenure-track positions are being replaced by non-tenure-track (NTT) positions such as adjuncts and lecturers. Studies of nonstandard professional workers have found significant variation in job satisfaction, and this is also true for NTT faculty. Why is job satisfaction among NTT faculty so variable, and how can we understand it? Drawing on in-depth interviews with one hundred NTT faculty at two large public research universities, the author argues that NTT faculty vary in two important ways: the role of the income from their NTT job in their family and their pathway to the NTT position. The author develops a typology of NTT faculty based on these two dimensions and argues that these two dimensions intersect in important ways that affect the job satisfaction and job experiences of NTT faculty. The only group of NTT faculty that experiences high job satisfaction are those who prefer a NTT position over a tenure-track one, and who do not rely on the income from this job as the primary source of income for their family. This research has implications for understanding the job satisfaction of other nonstandard professional workers, who may vary in similar ways.

Implementing effective strategies for the management of online faculty contributes to the experience of online students by ensuring that faculty are prepared to facilitate courses in a manner in which students are engaged and learning outcomes are attained. Additionally, faculty management impacts the experience of online faculty by reducing isolation; providing direction, feedback, and development; and implementing rewards and recognition to increase satisfaction and engagement. Further, best practices for online faculty management impact administrators by improving the learning outcomes of programs and departments, increasing student retention, reducing faculty attrition rates, and building institutional community. Employing best practices for the management of online faculty serves to create efficiencies and improve operations. This chapter will present best practices for faculty recruitment that aim to reduce the potential for bias and increase collaborative decision making. Additionally, key aspects of effective online faculty training will be discussed, in the context of relevant literature. Further, guidelines for the delivery of engaging professional development in the virtual space will be provided. Best practices for supervision and evaluation will be explored, including expectation setting, regular feedback, and formal assessment procedures. The aforementioned facets of online faculty management will be examined through an analysis of six case studies, based on initiatives that were implemented for the online campus of a small university.

On Inauguration Day 2017, Milo Yiannopoulos gave a talk sponsored by the University of Washington College Republicans entitled “Cyberbullying Isn’t Real.” This chapter is based on participant-observation conducted in the crowd outside the venue that night and analyzes the violence that occurs when the blurring of the boundaries between “free” and “hate” speech is enacted on the ground. This ethnographic examination rethinks relationships between law, bodies, and infrastructure as it considers debates over free speech on college campuses from the perspectives of legal and public policy, as well as those who supported and protested Yiannopoulos’s right to speak at the University of Washington. First, this analysis uses ethnographic research to critique the absolutist free speech argument presented by the legal scholars Erwin Chemerinsky and Howard Gillman. Second, this essay uses the theoretical work of Judith Butler and Sara Ahmed to make claims concerning relationships between speech, vulnerability, and violence. In so doing, this chapter argues that debates over free speech rights on college campuses need to be situated by processes of neoliberalization in higher education and reconsidered in light of the ways in which an absolutist position disproportionately protects certain people at the expense of certain others.

The internationalisation of industries has spilled over to academia, whereby institutions of higher learning (IHL) increasingly compete in the graduate quality and applied graduate knowledge capabilities that they can offer. With increasing global competition for students, combined with the evolving need for lifelong learning in dynamic industries impacted by digital knowledge management, there is an opportunity for IHLs to be able to evolve to ensure their business models enable services and service delivery to cater to and help shape industry demands. This chapter will look at micro-credentialing (MC) and how the provision of MCs has changed along with the evolving IHL education environment. The demands of students, employers and ecosystem considerations will be addressed through a review of the current landscape, pathways to MC and how MC may be operationalised. The Bersteinian approach to pedagogic classification, which identifies the framework of knowledge as being communicable via three axes of singularism, regionalism and a wider generalist approach is referenced as a framework. The resultant recommendations that draw upon these foundations will conclude the chapter.

The pursuit of becoming a professor is intensely competitive and fraught with personal and academic complexities. This chapter reflects the author’s post-PhD experience of being “on the market.” The author explores some of the challenges and strategic considerations of gaining a fixed-term contract in hope of securing a coveted tenure track position. The author’s advice for promotion from “perilous to permanent” status is driven by two questions: “what do I want?” and “what’s the best use of my time?” This chapter will be of interest to an international audience including PhD candidates, early career researchers, and those going “back on the job market.”

This chapter explores connections of the assessment of learning at the programmatic level and the humanitarian mission of higher education. To highlight typical aspects of assessment routines, we examine the experiences and processes of a small department in the college in the United States focusing on two themes: concerns about assessment culture and concerns about assessment data. Assessment of student learning falls under the umbrella of regular faculty work. However, these activities become contradictory if we reflect on assessment as cultural labor discussed through layers of alienation and distribution of labor among part-time, full-time faculty and students. Further, discussing data practices, we question the philosophy of datafication, or tendency to measure any aspect of learning with presumed objectivity, as well other data routines. To address the limitations of assessment from the humanistic point of view we call to develop a dialogue in order to provide opportunities for justice to students, faculty, and data. Such opportunities can emerge from honest discussions of faculty labor in the assessment engagement and reframing assessment as a research process.