Last week, I posted about why philosophers should eliminate the terms junior and senior from their vocabulary. I ended the post with the assertion that the terms junior and senior work to the detriment of disabled philosophers, philosophers of colour, and members of other underrepresented groups in philosophy insofar as these philosophers are more likely to be in non-tenure-track and non-tenured positions than nondisabled white philosophers are. In addition, I noted that although the term junior—at least when it is ascribed to non-tenure track faculty—carries with it the associations of unpolished professionally and lack of experience (we could add: limited knowledge of relevant literature, limited publications, no desire to advance professionally), the assumptions upon which these associations rely are often false. Nevertheless, these generalized false assumptions tacitly condition all sorts of policies and practices, some of them long established, in the profession and discipline.
Philosophers—especially philosophers concerned to increase the heterogeneity of the profession and discipline—should regard as very disconcerting the fact that these biases shape their policies and practices and should, therefore, feel compelled to develop ways to counter them. In order to advance this process, I have compiled a list of Ten Significant Ways to Improve the Situation for Non-Tenure Track Faculty that is designed to mitigate these biases. Notice, furthermore, that the items on the list go some distance to work against the homogeneous composition of edited volumes, conference speaker lists, and professional associations, as well as work to mitigate the aforementioned unfounded assumptions.
Ten Significant Ways to Improve the Situation for Non-tenure Track Faculty:
- Invite a non-tenure track faculty member to be a keynote at your association’s next annual conference.
- If you are the chair of a department, invite a non-tenure track faculty member to be the keynote at your department’s next retreat.
- If you are the editor of a journal, ask a non-tenure track faculty member to guest edit a special issue of the journal.
- If you are the person in your department arranging the speaker's series, invite non-tenure track faculty members to give talks in your department.
- Ask a non-tenure track faculty member to be an instructor at your summer institute for underrepresented students.
- If you are the program chair for an upcoming APA conference, ask non-tenure track faculty members to serve on the program committee.
- Nominate and elect non-tenure track faculty members for positions (including upper-level leadership positions) in professional associations (APA, BPA, ASA, etc.).
- If you are editing a forthcoming collection, ask non-tenure track faculty members to contribute chapters to it.
- Ask a non-tenure track faculty member to join your research team, work on a grant proposal, etc.
- Give full credit (in publications, on committees, on task forces, etc.) to non-tenure track faculty where their ideas have been used.
Shelley Tremain
(11.) If NTT faculty at your institution are organizing a union, be a vocal supporter of their efforts; ask them how you can help and then do what they say.
Posted by: Geoff Pynn | 05/10/2015 at 09:27 AM
(12.) Advocate to invite NTT faculty in your department to participate fully in decision-making concerning curriculum and other policies that affect their work. (Though recognize that, given what they are paid, NTT faculty may quite reasonably decline the invitation; don't hold this against them or use it as a reason not to invite them again in the future.)
Posted by: Geoff Pynn | 05/10/2015 at 09:28 AM
For that matter, strike "non-tenure track" and insert "independent scholar." After all, soon there will be even more independent scholars than there will be non-tenure track academics -- if there aren't already. (Talk about the disenfranchised ...)
Posted by: David Patterson | 05/10/2015 at 11:22 AM
David, great comment. In using the term 'non-tenure track', I meant to include philosophers who may have work one semester, none the next, etc., that is, faculty who don't have any kind of steady employment. I would identify these individuals as "independent scholars," since they aren't really affiliated with an institution after their (temporary) contract ends. Did you have other people in mind?
Posted by: Shelley Tremain | 05/10/2015 at 11:38 AM
Non-tenure track faculty are still "faculty," and can, at least for a time, enjoy some of the privileges of being associated with an actual institution. "Independent scholars" are exactly that -- independent, with no institutional support of any kind, and the difference between the two can be considerable.
I'm reminded of the time I decided to get a fish tank (no, seriously -- this is relevant), and a veteran fish keeper saw me at the register and said, "Just remember, it's not an investment, it's a hobby." "What's the difference?" I asked. "An investment," he said, "is something from which you can make money. A hobby only costs you money." To be an independent scholar these days is to be an (often unwilling) hobbyist, whose work in the field is ultimately an expense, and nothing else. At least as a non-tenure track faculty member, one can enjoy a career that is, even if just temporarily, an actual investment.
Posted by: David Patterson | 05/10/2015 at 12:02 PM
I really like the suggestions, but I worry that implementing them would amount to increasing the work-load substantively for NTT scholar-teachers. In the States, at any rate, NTT scholar-teachers have a much higher teaching load than TT scholar-teachers. Someone who is teaching 4/4 or more doesn't only need more recognition of her scholarship; she also needs more time in which to be a scholar.
My ideal for the evolution of the academy would be the creation of two different tenure-streams, one for researchers (with light teaching demands) and one for teachers (with light research demands), but with strict parity of compensation, benefits, and institutionalized protection. Some schools are moving in that direction with their policy for multi-year contract, full-time lecturers, with explicit promotion standards. I'd like to see a lot more of that.
Until that glorious day, I think that it is the structure of the workplace -- making sure that NTT are included in all decision-making, feeling respected and appreciated by TT colleagues, etc. -- is just as important as recognition of the quality of scholarship.
Posted by: Carl Sachs | 05/10/2015 at 12:05 PM
Carl,
I was expecting someone to raise that issue. The list recommends "inviting" people to participate. Any invitation can be refused, by anyone, at any level. Of course, people in non-tenure track positions might feel some degree of compulsion to accept such invitations; but, why is that? I suggest that it is because any and all of my recommendations carry a certain amount of prestige that has been withheld from non-tenure members of the profession.
Geoff picked up on the last point you make about decision making which is a very valuable addition to the list.
You ideal of the academy seems to be a hybrid of the current distinction made between research and teaching institutions, with the new stipulation that neither carries more prestige or professional recognition than the other. Is that correct?
Posted by: Shelley Tremain | 05/10/2015 at 01:01 PM
David, I'm still not seeing the difference. Non-tenure track faculty are independent scholars between contracts. Do you mean: someone who has a degree in philosophy but has no intention of working in the university again?
Posted by: Shelley Tremain | 05/10/2015 at 01:03 PM
"Non Tenure Track" as a phrase privileges tenure and tenure track as the norm, and those not on the TT as others, just like using "nonwhite" as a racial identifier privileges whiteness as the norm. It would be great if another term were used instead, one that doesn't establish some faculty as "non" or "other." I don't have another term in mind, but this is, I think, a point that needs some attention and consideration. There are lots of people in my dept who are not on the TT, but they have been there for many years (many were hired as spousal accommodations), and they often perform service to the dept (student advising, directing programs, etc.). They are permanent, for all intents and purposes, although they don't have the protection (or payscale) of tenure.
Posted by: sj | 05/10/2015 at 01:37 PM
That's correct -- as long as you have a contract as non-tenure track faculty and are pulling in a paycheck, for however brief a time, you are not an "independent scholar." Whenever that situation changes, however, and you are no longer employed, you are an "independent scholar." I've served on a committee that oversees awards to independent scholars (a rarity) for a few years now. Anyone currently employed in academia does not qualify by definition. (Oh, and I'm a musicologist. Your comments are just as applicable to my field, though, as any other. If I took, say, a one-year replacement position or even a semester position at a college or university, I wouldn't describe myself as an independent scholar during that period. "Tenure track" and "non-tenure track" are to me terms that define one's position *within* an academic setting. Outside of academia, the terms are irrelevant. You seem to be using "non-tenure track" in a much broader sense -- which is fine. One way or another, I agree with you -- there are far more scholars out there than there is support.)
Posted by: David Patterson | 05/10/2015 at 02:29 PM
sj, thanks very much for your remarks. I agree with them. I don't generally use the term 'non-tenure track' in speech or writing. But I have done so here because I wanted to pick up on a point that I made in my post last week, namely, that many "tenure-track" and "tenured" people have less experience teaching, fewer publications, etc., yet, often they are given the opportunities to do the things I list precisely so that they can get tenured (in the first case) and promoted (in the latter case). There are terms available of course, such as adjunct or temporary faculty; but none of these draw attention to the point that I want to underscore: it is precisely people's relation to tenure that determines whether they are given these opportunities. That, ss I suggested in last week's post, relies upon an outdated understanding of employment in the university and is fundamentally elitist.
Posted by: Shelley Tremain | 05/10/2015 at 03:54 PM