어쩌다 블로그: 대학과 학문, 연구와 정책

Managed Professionals is a source book on the negotiated terms of faculty work and a sociological analysis of the restructuring of faculty as a professional workforce. Based on a sample of forty-five percent of the more than 470 negotiated faculty agreements nationwide (which cover over 242,000 faculty), the book offers extensive examples and analysis of contractual provisions on: salary structures; retrenchment; use and working conditions of part-time faculty; use of educational technology (in distance education); outside employment; and intellectual property rights. Focused on the ongoing negotiation of professional autonomy and managerial discretion, the book offers insights into the broad restructuring of faculty, with conclusions that extend beyond unionized faculty to all of academe. Faculty are managed professionals, and are increasingly so. Managers have much flexibility, and as they seek to reorganize colleges and universities, the exercise of their flexibility serves to heighten the divisions within the academic profession and to reconfigure the professional workforce on campus.

During the last two decades, many U.S. universities have restructured themselves to operate more like corporations. Nowhere has this process been more dramatic than at New York University, often touted as an exemplar of the "corporate university." Over the same period, an academic labor movement has arisen in response to this restructuring. Using the unprecedented 2005 strike by the graduate student union at NYU as a springboard, The University Against Itself provides a brief history of labor organizing on American campuses, analyzes the state of academic labor today, and speculates about how the university workplace may evolve for employees. All of the contributors were either participants in the NYU strike-graduate students, faculty, and organizers-or are nationally-recognized writers on academic labor. They are deeply troubled by the ramifications of corporatizing universities. Here they spell out their concerns, offering lessons from one historic strike as well as cautions about the future of all universities. Contributors include: Stanley Aronowitz, Barbara Bowen, Miabi Chatterji, Maggie Clinton, Andrew Cornell, Ashley Dawson, Stephen Duncombe, Steve Fletcher, Greg Grandin, Adam Green, Kitty Krupat, Gordon Lafer, Natasha Lightfoot, Micki McGee, Sarah Nash, Cary Nelson, Matthew Osypowski, Ed Ott, Ellen Schrecker, Naomi Schiller, Sherene Seikaly, Susan Valentine, and the editors.

참고용 Review: 
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0094306109356659aa
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-5959.2009.00231.x

Starting with the question "How have professors and educational institutions responded to pressures to be professional yet act bureaucratically," Philo Hutcheson uses federal and AAUP records and surveys and blends historical research and sociological analysis to develop a full understanding of the problem. With the dramatic expansion of the professoriate following World War II came increasing tensions between the professor's perceived traditional status as an autonomous professional on the one hand and new role as a bureaucrat subject to institutional authority and responsible for departmental and committee assignments on the other. In this increasingly conflicted realm, the AAUP functioned as a key intermediary, dealing with such issues as tenure, salary, contracts, and even faculty strikes. 

Hutcheson examines how tensions between the requirements of institutional bureaucracies and the norms of the academic profession resulted in contentiousness and conflict within the national AAUP, between administrators and faculty members on individual campuses, within the ranks of faculties themselves, and even deep in the consciences of many concerned individuals. The book analyzes the association's ability to respond effectively and to balance the values of collegial representation with the powers of collective bargaining. It thus offers a detailed and authoritative examination of the AAUP's search for ways to sustain professionalism while dealing with the fundamental changes in the nature of the professoriate in the post-World War II era.

Academics are reeling under authoritarian management, marketisation and audits. A rewarding occupation is situated in an institutional context that’s not so benign. Speed is a key pressure in a profession where deliberation and a measured pace are especially important. Filip Vostal asks questions about this scenario. His Accelerating Academia: The Changing Structure of Academic Time is an opportune intervention on a pressing issue, assessing the literature and making his own empirical contribution.

(... from 참고용 review: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2017/08/18/book-review-accelerating-academia-the-changing-structure-of-academic-time-by-filip-vostal/)

Unionization in the Academy is an authoritative, balanced, and comprehensive account of academic unions—their history, purpose, and the conflicts they cause. Judith Wagner DeCew takes on the central issues, including unions for part-time and adjunct faculty, graduate student unions, and collective bargaining. The book also includes a history of the rise of academic unions and its watershed moments, such as the U.S. Supreme Court's 1980 Yeshiva decision. A series of important articles by other observers supplements DeCew's insights and arguments. This combination yields a detailed survey of the arguments for and against academic unions of all kinds. Are unions a threat because they create adversity and conflict with academic values? Or do unions support those values by creating community and collegiality? Unions in Academia is the essential reader for faculty, students, administrators, and anyone else trying to answer those questions.

Brings together essays by tenure-track faculty, adjuncts, and graduate employees from a variety of disciplines and geographical regions in an analysis of the changing identity of academic labor. The essays included suggest alternatives for responding to the ongoing erosion of tenure and academic freedom and reshaping the academic workplace.

Contributors discuss the impact of today's casualized academic job market on faculty's self-perception, political action, and responses to the changing nature of higher education. The essays included in this collection address a number of topics, including: today's academic labor situation from an educational history perspective, the development of an academic worker identity via the build-up to a strike, the graduate-employee union movement, unionization as a social justice movement, faculty unionization and workplace solidarity, the potential culture clash between professional and blue-collar unions, the faculty's complicity in the creation of a two-tiered job system, and the othering of adjunct and non-tenure-track faculty.

By focusing on the state of the academic job system on their campuses, the contributors to this volume suggest some alternatives for responding to the ongoing erosion of tenure and academic freedom in higher education and reshaping the academic workplace.

As much as we think we know about the modern university, very little has been said about what it's like to work there. Instead of the high-wage, high-profit world of knowledge work, most campus employees—including the vast majority of faculty—really work in the low-wage, low-profit sphere of the service economy. Tenure-track positions are at an all-time low, with adjuncts and graduate students teaching the majority of courses. This super-exploited corps of disposable workers commonly earn fewer than $16,000 annually, without benefits, teaching as many as eight classes per year. Even undergraduates are being exploited as a low-cost, disposable workforce.

Marc Bousquet, a major figure in the academic labor movement, exposes the seamy underbelly of higher education—a world where faculty, graduate students, and undergraduates work long hours for fast-food wages. Assessing the costs of higher education’s corporatization on faculty and students at every level, How the University Works is urgent reading for anyone interested in the fate of the university.

Steal This University explores the paradox of academic labor. Universities do not exist to generate a profit from capital investment, yet contemporary universities are increasingly using corporations as their model for internal organization. While the media, politicians, business leaders and the general public all seem to share a remarkable consensus that higher education is indispensable to the future of nations and individuals alike, within academia bitter conflicts brew over the shape of tomorrow's universities. Contributors to the volume range from the star academic to the disgruntled adjunct and each bring a unique perspective to the discussion on the academy's over-reliance on adjuncts and teaching assistants, the debate over tenure and to the valiant efforts to organize unions and win rights.

Academic labor has never been more vulnerable to exploitation, or more galvanized into action. Threats to tenure, job shortages for new Ph.D.s, and an increasing reliance on poorly paid graduate students and adjunct faculty for teaching are the harsh reality on campuses across the nation. Will Teach for Food provides a clarion call to academic workers, summoning them to take action against the continued decline in working conditions on American campuses.

When graduate students at Yale University held a “grade strike” during the 1995-96 academic year, they were protesting policies such as downsizing, subcontracting, and outsourcing-strategies currently wreaking havoc on the larger U.S. workforce. The debates at Yale mirror those on many campuses: whether graduate student teaching assistants are students or employees of the university; whether faculty are management or staff; what constitutes a reasonable teaching load and fair compensation.

In Part I of Will Teach for Food, participants describe the Yale student strike and examine what workers on other campuses can learn from this action. In Part II, activists and scholars place the challenge to academic workers in the context of U.S. labor history and assess the impact of university “corporatization” on the communities that surround them and on higher education as a whole.

The increasing corporatization of education has served to expose the university as a business—and one with a highly stratified division of labor. In _Chalk Lines_ editor Randy Martin presents twelve essays that confront current challenges facing the academic workforce in U.S. colleges and universities and demonstrate how, like chalk lines, divisions between employees may be creatively redrawn. While tracing the socioeconomic conditions that have led to the present labor situation on campuses, the contributors consider such topics as the political implications of managerialism and the conceptual status of academic labor. They examine the trend toward restructuring and downsizing, the particular plight of the adjunct professor, the growing emphasis on vocational training in the classroom, and union organizing among university faculty, staff, and graduate students. Placing such issues within the context of the history of labor movements as well as governmental initiatives to train a workforce capable of competing in the global economy, _Chalk Lines_ explores how universities have attempted to remake themselves in the image of the corporate sector. Originally published as an issue of _Social Text_, this expanded volume, which includes four new essays, offers a broad view of academic labor in the United States. With its important, timely contribution to debates concerning the future of higher education, _Chalk Lines_ will interest a wide array of academics, administrators, policymakers, and others invested in the state—and fate—of academia

One of the most significant trends in American higher education over the last decade has been the shift in faculty employment from tenured to contingent. Now upwards of 75% of faculty jobs are non-tenure track; two decades ago that figure was 25%. One of the results of this shift—along with the related degradation of pay, benefits, and working conditions—has been a new push to unionize adjunct professors, spawning a national labor movement. Professors in the Gig Economy is the first book to address the causes, processes, and outcomes of these efforts.

Kim Tolley brings together scholars of education, labor history, economics, religious studies, and law, all of whom have been involved with unionization at public and private colleges and universities. Their essays and case studies address the following questions: Why have colleges and universities come to rely so heavily on contingent faculty? How have federal and state laws influenced efforts to unionize? What happens after unionization—how has collective bargaining affected institutional policies, shared governance, and relations between part-time and full-time faculty? And finally, how have unionization efforts shaped the teaching and learning that happens on campus?

Bringing substantial research and historical context to bear on the cost and benefit questions of contingent labor on campus, Professors in the Gig Economy will resonate with general readers, scholars, students, higher education professionals, and faculty interested in unionization.

Comment:

발표자료에서 "저출산, 고령화로 인한 인구구조 변화에 대비 대학원 재정지원의 집중화 긴요"라고 되어 있는데, 이런 환경에서 어떻게 전체 예산 2배를 확보하겠다는 건지는 잘 모르겠으나 '단' 개수 축소와 아래 대학본부지원금 30% 배정 항목은 BK21을 보다 공식적으로 '대학원재정지원사업'화 하겠다는 의도로 읽힌다. 

또한, BK21은 1999년 출범할 때 부터 '선택과 집중'을 표방해왔고, 2단계-PLUS로 이어질 때도 항상 나온 말이었다. 그러나 어쩌다보니 - 개인적으로 지역정치와 학계 내 정치 싸움(?)의 결과라고 보는데 - 과정도 결과도 '선택과 집중'이라기엔 뭔가 애매해진 게 사실이다. BK21 FOUR도 이전 사업의 전철을 따를까? 그건 또 모른다. PLUS까지는 대학원 규모가 계속 성장하는 추세였지만 2016~7년을 기준으로 꺾였고 앞으로는 하락세만 남아있기 때문에(...) 사업 의도와 무관하게 자연스럽게 '선택과 집중'으로 갈 수도 있다. BK21 정책과 함께 '선택과 집중'이 가속될 것이라고 예측하는 게 더 합당해보이기도 한다. 

Comment:

단별 사업비가 16억이니 30% 대학본부 지원금은 약 5억원 정도로 각종 대학재정지원사업에 비하면 매우 적고 쓰임새도 여러모로 해당 학과 대학원으로 제한되어 있지만 여태 대학들이 소규모 재정지원사업에도 사활을 걸어온 것을 고려하면 앞서 말했듯이 BK21 역시 '대학원재정지원사업'이 되어 경쟁이 더 심해지지 않을까 싶다. 

뒤에도 나오지만 30%를 대학본부지원금에 배정했으니 이에 대한 평가도 당연히 중요히 여겨질텐데, 이 평가 역시 기존 BK21과는 달리 타 대학재정지원사업과 비슷하게 이뤄질 것이다. 아마 초반에는 대학원 별로 괜찮은 실험적인 시도가 이뤄질 수 있을텐데, 그 중 긍정적인 시도가 잘 살아남으면 이 30% 배정금액이 신의 한수가 될 수도 있고, 반대로 평가를 위한 평가, 체면치레와 paperwork으로 가득차서 차라리 대학원생 지원금액을 늘리는게 나았을 결과가 나올 수도 있겠다.

Comment:

뭐 '~ 인재양성형'으로 구분하는 거는 단어바꿔치기일 뿐이고...('혁신성장!')

최대금액 변경 내용이 안 나와 있고 또 기존 BK21 사업단 장학금 수혜현황이 어떤지 모르겠지만 장학금 최소금액 확대는 언제나 환영이다. 과기특성화대학 소속이 아닌 대학원생들의 등록금 부담을 실질적으로 줄여주기 위해서는 최대금액 변경도 꼭 필요하다. 

박사 수료생도 원래는 지원대상에서 제외였던 것으로 알고 있는데 월 100 보장은 큰 긍정적인 변화로 보인다. 다만 수혜가능기간을 분명히 제한할텐데 그런 세부사항은 나와있지 않다.  

이것도 뭐 그냥 정부 정책기조에 맞장구 쳐주는 용도라고 생각.

Comment:
외국인 유학생 비율 제한을 두었다는 것은 PLUS 사업 때 유학생 비율이 과도하게 높았던 사업단이 존재했다는 것으로 들리는데, 사실 확인이 필요할 듯. 그와 별개로 이런 제한을 둔 근거를 제시할 필요가 있어 보인다. (국민 세금을 외국인 유학생한테 쓰면 안되지!와 같은 이유면 연구진이 굉장히 오판을 하는 것이라 생각하는데, 지금으로선 별다른 근거가 생각이 안난다...)

질적 평가 중시한다는 것도 매번 나오는 내용이라 얼마나 실효성 있게 지켜질지 모르겠지만 '대표성과 위주'와 '대학 차원 대학원혁신 평가' 두 내용 모두 경험상 '밖에서 보기 좋은 사례'가 높은 점수를 딸 확률이 높아 다소 우려되긴 한다. 그 대표성과라는 것도 결국엔 IF 높은 저널 게재가 아닐지... 대학 차원 대학원혁신도 결국엔 졸업 요건에 IF m 이상 저널 n 편 추가를 통한 연구역량 증대가 아닐지...

단일권역화는 결국 교육부 내부 조율을 통해 바뀌지 않을까 싶은데, 평가패널이 무엇을 의미하는지 정확하지 않아 뭐라하기가 어렵다. 어쨌든 이 역시 앞서 언급한 대학구조조정 가속화와 함께 갈듯...

마지막 두개는 두팔 벌려 환영이다. 다만 BK21 사업에서 주는 돈은 조교/연구원 업무 대가에 해당하지 않을 것이기 때문에 저 의무화 범위가 어디까지일지 따져보아야 한다. 대학원혁신 방안에 포함되어야 실효성이 있을 것이다. 또한 행정인력 역시 이미 지금도 위촉연구원 등으로 별도 채용하고 있어 얼마나 실효성이 있을지 모르겠지만 어쨌든 지금보다는 나아지겠지 싶다.