Working with Faculty Writers

12. Academic Publication and Contingent Faculty: Establishing a Community of Scholars

DOI: 10.7330/9780874219029.c012 12 Aca d e m i c P u b l i cat i o n a n d C o n t i n g e n t Fac u lt y Establishing a Community of Scholars Letizia Guglielmo and Lynée Lewis Gaillet There should not be a cumulative disadvantage to being employed in a contingent position, which permits academics to gain experience and demonstrate competence. —Gary Rhoades The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) reports, “Today, over 50 percent of faculty serve in part-time appointments, and non-tenure-track positions of all types account for 68 percent of all faculty appointments in American higher education. Both part- and fulltime non-tenure-track appointments are continuing to increase” (AAUP 2009). Nontraditional, hybrid, contingent faculty positions proliferate the academic landscape in the wake of economic downturn—with no resolution or plans for returning to “status quo” in sight. Although publication manuals and writing guides targeted to graduate students and junior faculty permeate the market, particularly given the media attention focused on the ubiquitous “crisis is scholarly publication,” current publications neither fully account for the range of academic positions often characterized as “other” nor offer comprehensive discussions of publishing scenarios coupled with practical advice. Although the nature and look of publishing is shifting, we recognize that the admonishment to “publish or perish” is still relevant; publications still equal cultural currency in academia and provide the means for purchasing advancement—even in contingent positions, which we define as teachers in positions, both full- and part-time, that are dependent on yearly or semester-to-semester contract renewals, who are not eligible for tenure, and who most often are not supported with funding or release time for scholarship and professional Academic Publication and Contingent Faculty    211 development. As Deirdre McMahon and Ann Green (2008) explain in an issue of Academe Online devoted to contingency faculty issues, “Because the primary means to be recognized as a scholar remains publication, adjuncts and other contingent faculty face the same pressures to publish to secure a tenure-track job as those on the track do to advance.” Publishing opportunities and “research agendas” often emerge out of professional development and mentoring initiatives offered to tenuretrack faculty and newly-hired assistant professors; however, contingent faculty find few opportunities to take advantage of this kind of training/ mentoring and rarely find allies and peers within their departments. Furthermore, contingent faculty members are often isolated from and sometimes ignored within the traditional structure of academic departments . As Gary Rhoades (2008) explains, “We must imagine new ways to strengthen the academic profession that validate the work, expertise, and qualifications of colleagues in contingent positions.” With all that has been written on the subject of academic publication, we still see a significant need not only to redefine our current conceptions of both mentoring and scholarship, but also to draw other teacher-scholars into these important discussions in order to adequately address broader missions of “the scholarship of teaching and learning,” prepare all faculty members for full participation in the academy, and discover ways for mentors to document their important work. Pre ssure to Pu b li sh Although at one time a division existed between teaching and research universities, today, more often than not, nearly all faculty members are expected to publish and engage in research. The problem with the system as it stands is that “[research] has become the measure of individuals . Faculty may be paid to teach, but they are judged on their research” (Dalton 2006, 256). And, although it is becoming more difficult to publish books, monographs are still the gold standard when it comes to promotion and tenure decisions (and increasingly hiring decisions as well), despite claims made to the contrary by position statements such as the report of the MLA Task Force on Evaluating Scholarship for Tenure and Promotion, published in Profession in 2007 (“Report of the MLA Task Force” 2007). Equally troubling is the impact of the ongoing crisis in scholarly publishing both on scholars’ access to research resources given tight university library budgets and, more important, on the competition for book contracts when presses themselves are facing a financial crisis, particularly within the humanities. At its core, this crisis in 212   Letizia Guglielmo and Lynée Lewis Gai llet scholarly publishing results from competing goals and agendas among many stakeholders including faculty, publishers, and libraries. William W. Savage, Jr. argues that this current system of “forced productivity” not only...