|
|
Peer Review, Fall 2002
From the Editor
David Tritelli |
The exploitative working conditions experienced by a large
and growing number of faculty have been given considerable
attention-both in the popular press as well as within the
higher education community itself. And yet, surprisingly,
there has been very little study of the impact on student
learning. This is even more surprising-and alarming-given
the likely correlation between what we know about how best
to facilitate optimal student learning experiences and what
we know about the material conditions of contingent instruction.
According to one possible interpretation, the revolving door
on the cover of this issue of Peer Review suggests
excessive turnover, as a succession of faceless adjuncts cycle
in and out of the classroom. Hired on a semester-to-semester
basis, many faculty are never sufficiently acculturated to
the institution(s) where they teach. They often know nothing
about the general education program of which their course
is a part, and their knowledge about and ties to the department
or division that hired them are often very loose, at best.
Further, these faculty may be unaware of the institutional
resources available to the students they advise. Those who
do know or come to know these things may not be hired back-a
significant but unrecognized loss to an institution.
An alternative interpretation suggests itinerancy: a single
faculty member in motion, moving in and out of the classroom
so quickly that she arrives just in time to teach the class
and is gone as soon as it ends, perhaps to repeat the same
scene on another campus. Or she could be off to other full-
or part-time work elsewhere. While most institutions restrict
the number of courses a single instructor can teach, they
seldom inquire about the accumulated courseload of the part-time
or adjunct faculty who teach at several different institutions
or about overall workload.
We have come to know a good deal more that is equally troubling
about the working conditions of contingent faculty-the lack
of protection for academic freedom, for example, or the inordinate
dependence on student evaluations for re-appointment. We also
know that part-time faculty are less likely than full-time
faculty to use essay exams or to hold office hours.
Meanwhile, a related but less visible trend is emerging:
The number and percentage of full-time, non-tenure-track appointments
are increasing sharply. Clearly, we are witnessing a rapid
unbundling of faculty roles and the emergence of a two-tiered
system.
While attenuated budgets across all sectors of American higher
education may, in part, justify the increasing reliance on
contingent faculty, the articles in this issue of Peer
Review suggest that small, budget-driven decisions too
often are being made without reference to the big picture.
As Ernst Benjamin points out in the lead article, "Cost-saving
is a reasonable objective but it is not the same as cost-effectiveness."
Contingent faculty members themselves, as well as all of
us concerned about the future of the profession, have a great
deal at stake in any discussion of these staffing trends.
Yet, even as many of the obvious equity issues are redressed
through isolated reforms in some cases and unionization in
others, the increasing reliance on contingent faculty is more
than just a labor issue; teaching conditions are also learning
conditions. Given that contingent faculty now teach the majority
of lower-division undergraduate classes-classes populated
by students making the transition from school to college,
by students most likely to benefit from increased faculty-student
interaction-the potential for negative impact on student learning,
retention, and attrition is great.
This issue of Peer Review opens a sustained conversation
about the relationship between instructional staffing and
student learning-a conversation that will be taken up online,
through the new Peer Review online forum, and, in
collaboration with the Coalition on the Academic Workforce,
through a significant content track at AAC&U's upcoming annual
meeting. Information about both venues is available in this
issue. Please join us for this important discussion.
|
 |
|
