Insights into the working experience of casual academics and their immediate supervisors.

• Author: Davis, D.
• Position: Contributed Article - Report

Abstract

The increasing use of casual university academics has been an issue of concern to researchers and commentators for some time. Research to date has tended to focus on the plight of casuals who aspire to permanent positions, and emphasising issues such as career dissatisfaction, exploitation, and marginalisation. Little evidence has been gathered that quantifies the views of casuals more broadly. Less still has been gathered on the perceptions of the immediate supervisors of casuals. This article seeks to compare the perceptions of a cohort of casuals and their immediate supervisors. Both quantitative and qualitative data are gathered via a survey of academic staff employed in the business faculty of a large metropolitan university. The survey results indicate, among other things, a high level of mutual satisfaction between casuals and their immediate supervisors. Casuals also expressed a high level of general satisfaction with their work as casual staff. These and other findings are discussed in some detail.

1. Introduction

   This article reports research on the management and role of casual university teaching staff (henceforth casuals) from their perspective and from the perspective of their immediate supervisors who are responsible for the overall management of the subjects in which casuals are employed to teach. The supervisors of casuals are typically employed on a continuous basis, and they are henceforth referred to as coordinators. Casual lecturers and tutors are temporary employees, not formally employed on a continuous basis. They are also known, somewhat loosely, as part-timers, sessional teachers, contingent academics, and sometimes collectively as the invisible or adjunct faculty (Gappa and Leslie 1993, Ziegler and Reiff 2006, Ryesky 2007, West 2010, Langen 2011).

   While there is a considerable literature on the casualisation of academic employment (reviewed in the next section), none of the literature has, to date, systematically examined and compared the views of casuals and coordinators on the basis of survey-generated data; hence, this is the focus of our research for the article. That said, inferences have nevertheless been drawn from the limited data that have hitherto been generated. For example, the work of Lazarsfeld-Jensen and Morgan (2009a; 2009b) raised the following questions: Do coordinators and casuals share common views? Is there direct or indirect evidence of bullying? How do coordinators and casuals get along? Are there tensions, or are relationships relatively harmonious? Is there a perception that the system is anti-collegial? In the foreword to Percy et al. (2008), the issue of the possible exploitation of casuals is raised which, in turn, raises the following additional questions: Do the perceptions of coordinators and those casuals they coordinate indicate a relationship of coordinators exploiting casuals? Do coordinators have negative perceptions a bout the competency of casuals? Similar issues are raised by Brown, Goodman and Yasukawa (2010). On the basis of qualitative data--that is interview responses--they contend among other things that coordinators 'preside over the systemic suppression of casual voices' (p. 179). This begs the question: Are these qualitative findings supported by quantitative findings?

   In general, there is a gap in the empirical research literature dealing with differences and similarities in the perceptions of coordinators and casuals about issues of concern to casuals. This article attempts to examine these issues on the basis of evidence drawn from a survey of casuals' views and a separate survey of coordinators affiliated to the business faculty of a major Australian metropolitan university. Both quantitative and qualitative data are generated and discussed. for the purposes of objectively gleaning insights into the mean response to various statements put forward for respondents to consider, the quantitative results are seen in this article to be of central importance. Accordingly, Section 2 gives a background review of the existing literature relevant to the research issues raised in this article. This is followed in Section 3 by an outline of the methodology employed. A comparative analysis is then presented in Section 4 of the separate surveys of (i) casuals and (ii) coordinators. Finally, some concluding thoughts are presented in Section 5 in the form of a discussion of the principal research issues raised.

2. Background

   According to the BLASST Project (2013) that seeks to establish a sessional-staff standards framework, 'Up to 50 percent of teaching in Australian universities is provided by sessional staff. At individual departmental levels, this can rise to levels of 80 percent and more'. However, official data on the actual number of people employed as casual academics are not available. Junor (2004), Coates and Goedegebuure (2010), and May (2011), among others, argue that the casualisation of academic employment has been more pronounced than the average experience elsewhere in Australia. Coates and Goedegebuure (2010) suggest that on a simple headcount basis, casual academic employees account for about 40 per cent of all academic employment in Australia. The estimates in May (2011) based on superannuation-fund data suggest a figure a little below 60 per cent for 2010. While headcount estimates may vary, the long-term trend in the best available proxy indicator of the extent of change in casualisation rates has been increasing. Thus for 2011, the proportion of total casual higher-education employment expressed in full-time-equivalent (FTE) units reached its highest value to date of 16.1 per cent, compared to 12.3 per cent in 1996 (DEEWR 2012). The growth in the employment of casual academics has also been increasing elsewhere in the world. Baldwin and Wawrzynski (2011, p. 1486), for exam pie, state that more than half of all instructional staff in higher education in the United States hold temporary contingent appointments. In community colleges in the United States, the proportion is particularly high. Charlier and Williams (2011, p. 161) point out that by 2007 around 68 per cent of US community college faculty members were employed on a part-time basis.

   Most sources agree that the growth in casualisation has been driven by employers' cost-cutting and seeking the benefits of labour flexibility (for example Junor 2004, Charlier and Williams 2011, Groen et al. 2011). However, McKay and Brass (2011) seethe rise in casualisation as being not only driven by the desire for labour flexibility, but also for greater educational flexibility in general. Thus, casualisation can be linked to the increasing decentralisation of the delivery of material and the rise of podcasts and other technologies that contribute to the 'massification of higher education' locally and globally. It seems not inconceivable that evolving global technological forces that drive these changes will eventually lead not only to greater degrees of casualised teaching, but to more flexible, automated, and cost-effective systems of delivery in general.

   Drawing from Schibik and Harrington (2004), Cowley (2010, p. 34) observes that there are 'many benefits to casualisation'. These include (i) gaining access to industry or professional experts, (ii) providing greater flexibility to universities to respond to cyclical fluctuations in demand, as well as to more permanent, structural, changes in demand, (iii) facilitating 'a more congenial work/life balance for full-time staff where sessional staff teach the evening, early morning, or even weekend classes where they are offered' (p. 34), (iv) generating supplementary income for postgraduate students, and (v) freeing up time for 'full-time, tenured staff to pursue research or other necessary tasks'(p. 34).

   With the growth in casualisation, education labour unions and academic commentators have criticised what they consider to be the exploitation of casuals and have called for reforms (Junor 2004, Percy et al. 2008, Gottschalk and McEachern 2010, Brown, Goodman and Yasukawa 2010, Bexley, James and Arkoudis 2011, among others). They cite relatively poor employment conditions for casuals and particularly the lack of opportunities for them to make the transition to a full-time or tenure-track position. Thus, Gottschalk and McEachern (2010, p.37) point out that casuals' frequently, but unsuccessfully use casual work as a career strategy. The result is frustrated careers'. Brown, Goodman and Yasukawa (2010, p. 169) argue that there has emerged 'a class divide among academics [between casuals and non-casuals], which has become institutionally embedded'. It should be noted, however, that casuals have differing motivations for taking up casual academic work, and many may not be interested in obtaining full-time employment (Joiner and Bakalis 2006). West (2010) points out that casuals are a variegated group with differing backgrounds, differing personal situations, and differing expectations of what they want out of a casual academic job. This point seems to be played down in some of the casualisation-reform literature (for example Junor 2004, Percy et al. 2008, Gottschalk and McEachern 2010, Brown, Goodman and Yasukawa 2010, Bexley, James and Arkoudis, 2011).

3. Research Methodology

   The research for this article gathered and employed quantitative and qualitative information and can be viewed as an application of a mixed-methods approach (Creswell and Plano Clark 2011). The research data were gathered in two phases. Phase one investigated casual teaching from the perspective of the casuals themselves; Phase two investigated it from the perspective of the casuals' supervisors, that is the coordinators. The overarching purpose of this article is to compare and contrast the perspectives of casuals with the perspectives of their coordinators. Although both quantitative and qualitative data were collected, primacy has been given to...