According to the Coalition on the Academic Workforce (2012), adjunct faculty comprise approximately 75% of the teaching workforce in higher education settings. These instructors – primarily well-educated industry professionals and postsecondary teachers endeavoring to work in their chosen field – carry a heavy burden in that they must meet the same instructional goals of their tenured and full-time status colleagues without the accompanying salary, benefits, and prestige. And while it seems intuitive, under these circumstances, for institutions to invest more in training this specific sector of their workforce, most colleges and universities actually offer far fewer professional development opportunities to their adjuncts. Additionally, many institutions choose to coddle and micromanage their part-time instructors, stripping away the academic freedom, professional autonomy, and inherent accountability that accompanies the title of “professor” (tenured or otherwise). Despite many ongoing debates about contractual obligations, faculty governance, competing demands, appropriate credentials, and institutional expectations – one consistency surfaces: Adjunct faculty members play a vital role in the implementation and facilitation of postsecondary courses. Empowering adjunct faculty to engage with principles of best practice in the teaching of college students helps to create a culture of autonomy and responsibility among these important professionals.

Common myths about adjunct faculty include a misconception that these professionals possess inadequate credentialing in comparison to their full-time counterparts; an erred assumption that their part-time status reflects an active decision on the part of the professional rather than of the institution; and flawed conception that adjuncts – due to either their other employment responsibilities or their status angst – come into the role uninvested in developing their knowledge of teaching and learning. These misconceptions frequently drive institutional decision-making to clip the wings of part-time faculty in lieu of teaching them to fly. But Goldstene (2015) asserts that imposed administrative restriction “impedes the ability of contingent faculty to teach in a manner that fully embraces the relationship between the acquisition of skills and thought—and, especially, its expression in politics. As a majority of university professors lose autonomy in the classroom and become information delivery systems under greater administrative control, … their influence is diluted, along with the disruptive possibilities of education itself” (p. 370).

While certain other educational sectors – specifically K-12 schools – rely on consistency in content and delivery across a standards-based curriculum, the higher education landscape operates in a different fashion in order to meet its institutionally-mandated and programmatically-directed learning objectives. Further, while all sections of a course may share the same learning objectives, the methods through which those objectives are met may (and should) vary among instructors. This requires training in the art and science of teaching and learning, respectively. Reducing the role of the adjunct to a mere moderator of content surpasses the hazards of producing “canned” or “cookie-cutter” courses and transcends into the overarching issue of a skewed power dynamic. Institutions must do more to create cultures that promote equitable conditions in which our valuable adjunct faculty workforce will not simply survive but thrive in the innovation and facilitation of quality learning experiences for our students.

The five essential elements of faculty work and the academic workplace. Gappa et al., 2007.

References:

Coalition on the Academic Workforce (CAW). (2015). 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.

Goldstene, C. (2015). Designed to fail: Adjunct faculty and the fight for education. Working USA, 18(3), 367-375.