A Portrait of Non-Tenure-Track Faculty in Technical and Professional Communication

Abstract

We report the results of a pilot study that offers the field of technical and professional communication its first look at material working conditions of contingent faculty, such as course loads, compensation, and professional support. Findings include that contingent faculty are more enduring with stable full-time, multi-year contracts; they carry a substantial teaching loads; and the majority are satisfied and happy in their present position, but half would prefer to be working on the tenure track.

Keywords

contingent faculty labor academic programs

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Association of University Professors. (2013). The inclusion in governance of faculty holding contingent appointments. Washington, DC: Author.

American Association of University Professors (n.d.) Background facts on contingent faculty, Washington, DC: AuthorRetrieved from http://www.aaup.org/issues/contingency/background-facts.

American Federation of Teachers (2009) The American academic: The state of higher education workforce 1997–2007, Washington, DC: American Federation of TeachersRetrieved from http://www.aftface.org/storage/face/documents/ameracad_report_97-07for_web.pdf.

Baker

T. L.

(1994) Doing social research, 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Baldwin

R. G.

Wawrzynski

M. R.

(2011) Contingent faculty as teachers: What we know; what we need to know. American Behavioral Scientist 55(11): 1485–1509.

Bartholomae

(2010) Teaching on and off the tenure track: Highlights from the ADE survey of staffing patterns in English. Pedagogy: Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature, Language, Composition, and Culture 11(1): 7–32.

Berk

(2006) Thirteen strategies to measure college teaching: A consumer’s guide to rating scale construction, assessment, and decision making for faculty, administrators, and clinicians, Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Bettinger

Long

(2004) Do college instructors matter? The effects of adjuncts on students’ interests and success. Review of Economics and Statistics 92: 3.

Bousquet

Scott

Parascondola

(2004) Tenured bosses and disposable teachers, Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

10.

Cargile Cook, K, & Meloncon, L. (2011). Unpublished raw data: The job market in TPC.

11.

Coalition on the Academic Workforce. (2012). A portrait of part-time faculty members: A summary of findings on part-time faculty respondents to the coalition on the academic workforce survey of contingent faculty members and instructors. Retrieved from http://www.academicworkforce.org/Research_reports.html.

12.

Committee on Contingent Labor (2011) Professional employment practices for non-faculty members: Recommendations and evaluative questions, New York, NY: Modern Language AssociationRetrieved from http://www.mla.org/pdf/clip_stmt_final_may11.pdf.

13.

Charlton

Rose

S. K.

(2009) Twenty more years in the WPA’s progress. WPA: Writing Program Administration 33(1–2): 114–145.

14.

Curtis

Jacobe

M. F.

(2006) Consequences: An increasingly contingent faculty, Washington, DC: American Association of University Professors.

15.

Davis

M. T.

(2001) Shaping the future of our profession. Technical Communication 48(2): 139–144.

16.

Ehrenberg

R. L.

Zhang

(2004) Do tenured and non-tenure track faculty matter?, Washington, DC: National Bureau of Economic Research.

17.

Feldman

K. A.

(2007) Identifying exemplary teachers and teaching: Evidence from student ratings. In: Perry

R. P.

Smart

J. C.

(eds) The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based approach, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, pp. 93–129.

18.

Hoeller

(2014a) Equality for contingent faculty: Overcoming the two-tier system, Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

19.

Hoeller

(2014b) The academic labor system of faculty apartheid. In: Hoeller

(eds) Euquality for contingent faculty: Overcoming the two-tier system, Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press, pp. 116–155.

20.

Jaeger

A. J.

Eagan

M. K.

(2009) Unintended consequences: Examining the effect of part-time faculty members on associate’s degree completion. Community College Review 36(3): 167–194.

21.

Jaeger

A. J.

Eagan

M. K.

(2010) Examining retention and faculty use in the state system of public higher education. Educational Policy 20(10): 1–31.

22.

Johnson

I. Y.

(2011) Contingent instructors and student outcomes: An artifact or a fact? Research in Higher Education 52: 761–785.

23.

June, A. W. (2012). How universities treat adjuncts limits their effectiveness in the classroom, report says. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Adjuncts-Working-Conditions/133918/.

24.

Jones

Savage

(2014) Editorial: Tracking our progress: Diversity in technical and professional communication programs. Programmatic Perspectives 6(1): 132–152.

25.

Kezar, A., & Eaton, J. (2014). An examination of the changing faculty: Ensuring institutional quality and achieving desired student learning outcomes. CHEA Washington, DC.

26.

Kezar

Maxey

(2012) The changing faculty and student success, Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California and The Delphi Project.

27.

Kezar

Sam

(2011) Understanding non-tenure track faculty: New assumptions and theories for conceptualizing behavior. American Behavioral Scientist 55(11): 1419–1442.

28.

Knapp, L. G., Kelly-Reid, J. E., & Ginder, S. A. (2010). Employees in Postsecondary Institutions, Fall 2009, and Salaries of Full-Time Instructional Staff, 2009–10 (NCES 2011-150). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

29.

Lawrence

Galle

(2011) Tenure, status, and workload: Fundamental issues among business communication faculty. J Bus Comm 48(3): 319–343.

30.

Levin

J. S.

Shaker

G. G.

(2011) The hybrid and dualistic identity of full-time non-tenure-track faculty. American Behavioral Scientist 55(11): 1461–1484.

31.

Levin

J. S.

Shaker

G. G.

Wagoner

(2011) Post neoliberalism: The professional identify of faculty off the tenure-track. In: Kempner

Marginson

Ordorika

Pusser

(eds) Universities and the public sphere: Knowledge creation and state building in the era of globalization, New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 197–217.

32.

Maid

D’Angelo

(2013) What do you do when the ground beneath your feet shifts? In: Cargile Cook

Grant-Davie

(eds) In Online education 2.0: Evolving, adapting, and reinventing online technical communication, Amityville, NY: Baywood.

33.

Meloncon

(2009) Master’s programs in technical communication: A current overview. Technical Communication 56(2): 137–148.

34.

Meloncon, L. (2011). Unpublished raw data. A survey of TPC administrators.

35.

Meloncon

(2012) The rise of academic programs: A call for collaboration. Intercom 59(7): 13–15.

36.

Meloncon

(2014) Curricular challenges of emphasis degrees in technical and professional communication. In: Bridgeford

Kitalong

K. S.

Williamson

(eds) Sharing our intellectual traces: Narrative reflections from administrators of professional, technical, and scientific, communication program, Amityville, NY: Baywood, pp. 179–200.

37.

Meloncon

England

(2011) The current status of contingent faculty in technical and professional communication. College English 73(4): 396–408.

38.

Miller

(1991) Textual carnivals: The politics of composition, Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

39.

Moser

R. P.

(2014) Organizing the new faculty majority: The struggle to achieve equality for contingent faculty, revive our unions, and democratize higher education. In: Hoeller

(eds) Equality for contingent faculty: Overcoming the two-tier system, Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press, pp. 77–115.

40.

Mueller

Mandernach

B. J.

Sanderson

(2013) Adjunct versus full-time faculty: Comparison of student outcomes in the online classroom. Journal of online learning and teaching 9(3): 341–352.

41.

Polit

D. F.

Beck

C. T.

Hungler

B. P.

(2001) Essentials of nursing research: Methods, appraisal, and utilization, 5th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams, & Wilkins.

42.

Reevy

Deason

(2014) Predictors of depression, stress, and anxiety among non-tenure track faculty. Frontiers in Psychology 5(Article 701): 1–17.

43.

Rentz

Debs

M. B.

Meloncon

(2010) Getting an invitation to the English table and whether or not to accept it. Technical Communication Quarterly 19(3): 281–299.

44.

Schell

(1998) Gypsy academics and mother-teachers: Gender, contingent labor, and writing instruction, Plymouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.

45.

Scott

(2009) Dangerous writing: Understanding the political economy of composition, Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.

46.

Sonner

B. S.

(2000) A is for adjunct: Examining grade inflation in higher education. Journal of Education for Business 76: 5–8.

47.

Street, S., Maisto, M., Merves, E., & Rhoades, G. (2012). Who is professor “Staff,” and how can this person teach so many classes? Washington, DC: Center for the Future of Higher Education.

48.

Thompson

(2003) Contingent faculty and student learning: Welcome to the strativersity. New Directions for Higher Education 123: 41–47.

49.

van Teijligen

Hundley

(2002) The importance of pilot studies. Nursing Standards 16(40): 33–36.

50.

Waltman

Hollenshead

August

Miller

Bergom

(2010) Contingent faculty in a tenure track world, Ann Arbor, MI: Center for the Education of Women.

51.

Yeats

Thompson

(2010) Mapping technical and professional communication: A summary and survey of academic locations for programs. Technical communication quarterly 19(3): 225.