With social media craze and higher education crisis as parents, the hashtags #alt-ac, #post-ac, and #para-ac refer to people classified by their work, education, and attitude toward the academy, who opt or aim for careers across the public and private, employee and entrepreneur work spaces within and without higher education, and who by some lights are laying foundation for a new academy.
Until recently I was unaware that I might
be classified as an “acer” – as in “hacker.”
Like many others I do not fit nicely under
any one of the three hashtags, though best fit is a reluctant post-ac. For a decade I worked as an adjunct until
five years ago when romantic and labour market forces left me without even this
tenuous access to faculty work.
But no matter the subtleties of
classification, Nowviski
describes us as innovators, iconoclasts, entrepreneurs, and explorers. Unbound by convention we are thick-skinned and courageous. We are driven, self-motivated, self-reliant and innovative. And when faced with disintegrating
traditional academic employment options we are inspired to create personal and
systemic alternatives.
Disintegration of the current model for
higher education - a triad of institutional service providers (universities and
colleges), public institutional funding, and union represented institutional
employ – is characterized by its reduced public funding, rising costs,
exploitation of academic labour, inadequate/inequitable access, venture
capitalist inroads, unbundling of education, unprecedented mass education
through technology, and escalation in academic entrepreneurialism.
In this climate it is no surprise that initially isolated (re)actions of acers have coalesced into retreat, reform, and revolt meant to addresses the
education, research, publication, community service and employment aspects of
this failing institutional model.
The blog, How
To Leave Academia, notes that at least alt-acers see “the working
conditions of adjuncts as an issue of pressing importance to the future of higher
ed, and as an issue that addresses troubling class/labor divisions among
tenured faculty, contingent faculty, and staff/service ‘alternative’ academics.”
Precisely because the traits and trials
shared by acers are excellent material for movement beyond the pale of institutional,
union represented faculty employ I ask us all to consider two questions:
1) Suppose there was in place an alternative model, or
#alt-mod, for higher education that facilitated the education, research, and
community work of academics through independent practice directed and
protected by professional association and legislated social contract - as occurs in the
work lives of attorneys, dentists, accountants or psychiatrists - would you or
someone you know choose such a professional academic career path?
2) Independently of institutions and for your field –
be it philosophy, biology, composition, history, statistics, management, or some other –
could you finance such a professional practice based solely on revenue equivalent
to the current average advertised tuition of (US, UK, Canadian, etc.) higher education institutions, with no additional
appropriations for operations or capital repair and construction?
My answer is an emphatic, yes, I would choose this labour
arrangement and, yes, I
could finance a professional practice on tuition alone (also see: United States, Canada, and Australia - new links added 2023/08/20)).
To better inform your response consider
that this model is foundation for a new academy with opportunity for all interested
individuals to provide traditional faculty services from without the limited, exploitive
employ of higher education institutions. Through professional
licensure and independent practice academics exercise entrepreneurial control
over their work, including (but not limited to): where, when and how to provide
service; what students, research and community service to take on; how much to
charge for service; publication rates; and peer partnership.
Though it could, the professional #alt-mod
need not replace the alternative career paths of acers or the institutional facilitation
of higher education, but presents an attractive complement (new link added 2023/08/20) with economic
advantages to institutions and society. It is simply another path that some might find appealing in the exercise
of their right
to earn a living, while improving higher education for students
and society (new link added 2023/08/20).
I applaud acers for their innovative efforts but the product cannot be described as disruptive. All innovation in higher education has been of
the sort Christensen calls sustaining – in this case perpetuating the university
and college as principal service providers. By contrast the professional model has real potential to disrupt higher education. With respect just to the working and material
conditions of academics consider this short list of disruption:
1) Institutional employers become mere electives in higher education.
2) Institutions become possible vendors for
professional academics.
3) Faculty unions are not required within a profession of independent academics practitioners.
4) Professional prerogative
uniquely determines the value proposition of services.
5) Quality assurance and
improvement are conducted at the immediate point of service.
6) Access to face-to-face academic
service is improved and readily scaled to demand.
7)
Tenure is a consequence of quality, effective service that is constantly tested by the sector.
8)
Professional prerogative
determines the source and scale of revenue/income.
9) Professional prerogative determines all aspects of working conditions.
The main disruptive force of the
professional model is its paradigm shift in service from institutions to
individuals. Disintegration of the
institutional model is already forcing us toward entrepreneurialism, with academics
selling their services in course development, research, evaluation and
consultation on an individual basis. What I suggest is that this be done as other professionals have provided
their services for over a century, under professional social contract, in a
model where institutional facilitation and employ are merely options - not the
only option.
As an attorney or accountant any qualified
individual licensed by the state through a profession can arrange to offer
their services to the public for a fee. I suggest that the same be made true for academics - the very group that educates and so essential credentials the existing professions!
It is financially feasible that I own
and operate my own academic practice in philosophy without the need of a
university or college facilitator. I
could also partner with other academics and even open something like a
university or college, but owned and operated by the academic partners, say as
a co-operative or arrangements similar to those found in secondary charter
schools owned and operated by teacher partnerships.
This is an entrepreneurial academy that
operates outside or alongside the institutional boxes.
No comments:
Post a Comment