The Adjunct Advocate

March 20th 2008

I just finished meeting with Ryan Sexton, our web page programmer. He and I are working out the best way to display our new Podcast Interview Series. Ryan suggested that we offer a podcast player to visitors who may not have one. It's just saves a step in the process of listening to the Podcast Interviews. I saw the one he designed today, and it's easy to use. Magazine subscribers will have exclusive access to the Podcast Interviews for seven days, then the interviews will be available to everyone who's an AdjunctNation.com Family member.

Yesterday I interviewed author Marc Bousquet. We talked about his book How the University Works for almost an hour. I'll trim down the interview, and it will be posted later in the Spring. Something happened in the course of that interview that has happened to me only a handful of times in the almost 20 years I have been interviewing people for Adjunct Advocate. I asked a question about something Bousquet had written, and he replied that he never wrote it. When I read him the lines I'd highlighted in his book, he was clearly taken aback.

The text came from page 47: "That is, in re-creating jobs out of piece-work done by the contingent workforce, we address with one stroke the problems experienced by everyone else: tenure-stream faculty benefit because eliminating cheap teaching raises the price of experienced teaching and reinstalls the value of research in pedagogy; undergraduates benefit by receiving experienced, secure faculty (who "do knowledge" rather than "provide information") in the first two years, when they are most vulnerable." I asked him to comment on the notion that "secure faculty" i.e. full-time faculty "do knowledge," while nontenure-track faculty "provide information."

The note I made in my copy of the book was that the author was "struggling to find a difference between full-time and part-time faculty." I believe there are plenty of non-secure faculty who "do knowledge," and plenty of secure faculty for whom teaching is little more than providing information. I was curious to know what he thought. Unfortunately, claiming never to have written or said something is rarely the right answer, even if it's the truth. I have had the unpleasant experience of having been misquoted by journalists enough times to realize that when the misquotes come up later (journalists invariable use each other's work), I simply focus on the substance of the question, and not whether I said it or not. The strategy usually works pretty well.

There were plenty of places in Bousquet's book where I found myself muttering aloud as I read, and jotting in the margins. This is not necessarily a bad thing, in my opinion! He writes that students are likely to be taught by someone who started a "degree but never finished it...and who does not plan to be "working at your institution three years from now." Further, he writes that a "substantial majority" of contingent faculty are women, and that the majority of administrators are male. The facts are these (some come from the 2006 Education Digest put out by the Department of Education):

The average part-time faculty member stays at her/his college seven years.

No study has ever concluded that the average part-time faculty member holds an A.B.D. (the majority of part-timers hold M.A.s and not Ph.D.s).

Slightly more men than women teach part-time.

There are slightly more females than males who work in the 186,505 executive/administrative and managerial jobs within higher education.

My next interview is with Julie Ivey. She is the co-president of the Palomar College faculty union. She is one of just a handful of women who lead faculty unions in the United States, and she shares her position with a full-time faculty colleague. It's an interesting arrangement, as the union local is unified. Look for my interview with her later in the Spring, as well.

Finally, I am sending writer Terri Hughes-Lazzall in search of campaign donation records. I'll tell you a bit more about the assignment as the story develops. Until then, thanks for stopping by and thanks to those who have left their comments!! I am always glad to hear what readers have to say.

Posted By Patricia L. at 8:00 AM

Comments

Add comment

By: Anti-hypocrisy Advocate
Posted: March 21st 2008 6:09 pm
The link (from my earlier attempted post here which you deleted) showing what MB censored from his HTUW site: http://chronicle.com/review/brainstorm/bousquet/the-most-direct-path-to-quality As for "not the enemy": The gentleman doth protest too much methinks, for his actions speak louder than his words. Pace. Academic freedom (and free speech) uber alles!

By: Marc Bousquet
Posted: March 21st 2008 11:25 am
Hi again. I think I had some trouble with your comments thing--I didn't try to post anonymously and I'm not sure that I intended to leave the "gotcha" remark in there--perhaps I "sent" the comment half-written while I was trying to delete it. Can't remember--I was distracted by baby at the time. But thanks for explaining. (You may want to let readers know that the introduction--fifty-odd pages--from which you're quoting is available as a free pdf on my website, as is chapter 4, on the scandalous "financial aid" scheme at UPS.) As for "AHA," I wish he or she would realize that I'm not the enemy. I enjoyed the interview a lot, and welcomed the points at which you nudged me to think things through! Solidarity, M

By: Anti-hypocrisy Advocate
Posted: March 21st 2008 9:30 am
Yes, indeed, be sure to reassure "Anonymous" (really, now, as if we can't tell who that is from internal evidence) that he should _not_ interpret your words as a "gotcha" BECAUSE if he does, by golly, he'll start to censor your posts on his blog. (Watch your rhetoric -- tone it down a bit; know your place -- haven't we heard this all before in organizing?) And to prevent that dreaded experience of censorship, you're censoring anonymous posts to _your_ blog. Makes perfect sense, eh? BTW See Part-time (the person, not the blog, of course) for my response to censorship there. Ssssseeee ya.

By: P.D. Lesko
Posted: March 21st 2008 8:18 am
No WAY am I trying to getcha! I just had some questions about the data in the book. Data sets can be problematic; I'll agree with you there. It was Mark Twain who said, "There are lies. Damn lies. And statistics." It's just that the data used in the book propagate some myths about who temporary faculty are, and how they do their jobs. The title of the book it, of course, "How the University Works." It's a pretty authoritative stab at explaining things. I just disagree here and there with the conclusions. As I wrote above, reading a book, marking up the margins and muttering about the contents are a good sign that the said book is doing it's job splendidly. That is to say, it's actively engaging and making the reader (me) think! The interview does speak for itself, and I know our readers are going to enjoy it very much.

By: Anonymous
Posted: March 21st 2008 7:44 am
As for the "three years from now" versus seven years: faculty working contingently in at least one survey have indicated, on average, an intention to leave the institution within three years. I haven't looked at the statistic claiming seven year average terms of service, but there's not really a contradiction. There are plenty of circumstances folks plan to leave faster than they're able! As for the other "gotchas" you're trying to present, I don't know what to say: you're using different data sets and quoting me partially. I actually think it's a good interview, and encourage folks to give it a listen.

By: Anonymous
Posted: March 20th 2008 9:44 pm
Hi, Patricia. I think the interview speaks for itself. I think you're referring to a question you asked in which you redacted the meaning of my work incorrectly, as saying, in effect, that "all tenure-track faculty" do knowledge and all contingent faculty "provide information." That is an incorrect redaction of my intention. It's entirely possible that I wrote badly, but I didn't mean any such thing, and was genuinely startled to have those sentiments attributed to me. You write, " I believe there are plenty of non-secure faculty who "do knowledge," and plenty of secure faculty for whom teaching is little more than providing information." That seems reasonable to me, and I agree with it. As for the "three years from now" versus seven years: faculty working contingently in at least one survey have indicated, on average, an intention to leave the institution within three years. I haven't looked at the statistic claiming seven year average terms of service, but there's no

By: Anti-hypocrisy Advocate
Posted: March 20th 2008 6:43 pm
After the man-handling I've experienced at the HTUW blog (and which I cross-posted at the CHE blog just to preserve what MB had censored), I am not saddened but not surprised at your experience. It is likely objectively difficult to work in an elitist tiered system, advance to the next tier, and yet keep your vision clear -- without succumbing to the elitism of the new tier. Wasn't it Thorstein Veblen who said that workers identify with the class of their salary and not with the class of their origins?