Women Working as Casual Academics: A Marginalised Group

Abstract

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>Organisations are becoming increasingly flexible in staffing, often using a small core of permanent staff and a peripheral contingent of contract, casual and temporary employees. Recent Australian and overseas studies suggest that this is also true in the higher education sector, with a casualisation of the academic workforce, particularly in the lecturer and below range. This is creating a large group of marginalised academics, the majority of whom are women. Such academics' opportunities may be limited because of the values implicit in the university culture. The possibility of a model of permanent academics on the one hand and a ‘casual’ underclass on the other has the potential to cause significant problems and to affect the quality of education provided.</jats:p>

The casualisation of teaching and the subject at risk

“…A sociological perspective would highlight the risks posed to the individuals caught in the cycle of casualisation (Brown et al, 2006;Junor, 2004). Along these lines, several studies have highlighted their marginal status (Bassett, 1998), their average to poor working and employment conditions (Watters & Weeks, 1998), the lack of recognition and opportunity (Barrington, 1999;Kimber, 2003) and the challenges they face as marginal employees but significant 'front-end' workers (Barrett, 2004;Blanchard & Smith, 2001;Rice, 2004). The 'industrial' concern about the increase in casual teaching is that the sector is increasingly characterised by 'career casuals'; casual academics who continue to work in the system because, in a reciprocal way, the University requires their expertise, and their connection to the University is fundamental to their professional identity and growth, but who may never have the opportunity to experience the privilege of permanent work.…”

“…It would appear that rather than taking a 'macro' or centralised approach to training and development -even where that is embedded at the faculty, school or program level -it is arguably more important to focus on the micro-level practices that facilitate diverse opportunities for learning at the Program and teaching team level. Currently, however, marginalisation (Bassett, 1998), isolation (Watters & Weeks, 1998), an increasingly 'transactional' approach to the engagement of sessional teaching staff (Barrett, 2004), leaner budgets, and the intensification of academic work in general, currently work against the diverse forms of interaction that are most likely to foster a sense of belonging and provide the means for learning as a process of 'guided participation' and 'participatory appropriation' (Rogoff, 1995).…”

“…It also represents a type of 'industrial revolution', an historic and cultural shift in employment practices and workplace relations that have become an entrenched part of the current 'flexible' human resources model in the 'corporate' university (Bassett, 1998;DEST, 2000). To illustrate in the Australian higher education sector, the former federal government's Higher Education Workplace Relations Requirements (HEWRRs), which were introduced in 2003 to 'encourage a commitment to workplace reform and reflect the government's focus on workplace flexibility, direct relationships with employees and individual relationships' (DEST, 2003, p. 4), symbolically produced the casual teacher as an important device for demonstrating 'workplace flexibility': indeed, one of the key indicators for this was the removal of 'limitations or restrictions on the forms and mix of employment types, for example, limiting casual employment levels' (DEST, 2003, p. 4).…”

“…Abbas & McLean, 2001;Bassett, 1998;Blanchard & Smith, 2001) and addressing their needs (Barrington, 1999;Hall & Parker, 1996;McKenzie, 1996;Watters & Weeks, 1998). There is no one single approach that claims greatest efficacy, but those which show the greatest promise have taken a strategic, institutional approach to the issue and have facilitated discussion among the many stakeholders in order to reach adequate solutions (Hall & Parker, 1996;Herbert, Hannan, & Chalmers, 2002;UNSW, 2004).…”

“…The 'industrial' concern about the increase in casual teaching is that the sector is increasingly characterised by 'career casuals'; casual academics who continue to work in the system because, in a reciprocal way, the University requires their expertise, and their connection to the University is fundamental to their professional identity and growth, but who may never have the opportunity to experience the privilege of permanent work. Politicised accounts of the growing phenomenon of casualisation highlight the 'marginalised, exploited and expendable' nature of the casual workforce (Bassett, 1998), describing them as the 'tenuous periphery' maintaining the working conditions of the 'tenured core' (Kimber, 2003). Junor (2004), in her paper, Casual University Work: choice, risk, inequity and the case for regulation provides a comprehensive discussion of the 'industrial revolution' mentioned above, arguing that 'University casualisation…[is more] a creature of political regulation than market freedom' (p. 277).…”