Category Archives: Staff

Workplace Special Issue: Third Space Academic Labor

Posted on April 5, 2022 by | Comments Off on Workplace Special Issue: Third Space Academic Labor

Workplace journal logo

#CFP Workplace Special Issue: Third Space Academic Labor

Guest Editor: Aaron Stoller, Colorado College

You are invited to submit proposals for a special issue of Workplace: A Journal for Academic Labor focusing on Third Space labor in higher education. Despite most colleges and universities’ equity and inclusion commitments, labor in higher education is organized, valued, and supported along a false and exclusionary dichotomy. On one side, the “academic” domain — occupied by faculty — is the site of expertise, critical nuance, and knowledge production. On the other, the “non-academic” domain — occupied by staff — is the site of non-intellectual and largely replaceable managerial activity. This labor binary underpins most aspects of university life, radiating into a culture of exclusion regarding professional support systems, agency in governance structures, labor contracts, and policy environments.

Although this dichotomy pervades almost all college campuses, the nature of academic labor is far more complex (Stoller, 2021). Since the late 1960s and early 1970s, colleges and universities have increasingly depended upon what Whitchurch terms Third Space academic labor (Whitchurch, 2013).

Working through problems of division and exploitation between so-called First and Third Worlds, Bhabha (1990; 2004) introduced the concept of Third Space as a creative, disruptive space of cultural production. Following Bhabha, in social theory Third Space has been used to resolve a range of binaries through the conceptualization of identities that trouble conventional ways of being and behaving. Scholars have used Third Space to examine disability, race, gender, and sexuality, where fluid identities disrupt rigid social categorizations and the cultural hierarchies that inevitably follow. Third Space identities are risky and dangerous because they span and complicate defined cultural categories. They are also spaces of creativity and innovation that open new cultural possibilities (Soja and Hooper, 1993).

Whitchurch uses Third Space to identify a non-binary social class within higher education: emerging groups of professionals who disrupt the false distinction between “academic” and “non-academic.” Third Space professionals work in diverse areas of the institution, such as academic advising, writing programs and centers, quantitative reasoning centers, honors programs, first-year experience and transitions programs, women’s and LGBTQ centers, accessibility resources, and teaching and learning centers among others.

By spanning, interweaving, and disrupting traditional notions of academic labor, Third Space professionals bring tremendous value to their institutions and students. They hold deep academic expertise in teaching and learning, increasing the university’s capacity for immersive and engaged pedagogies (Ho, 2000; Gibbs and Coffey, 2004). They also support the DEI missions of colleges and universities. Almost all Third Space professions developed in response to traditional faculty being unable or unwilling to serve students from marginalized, minoritized, and under-resourced backgrounds (Astin, 1971; Boquet, 1999; Carino, 1996; Groark and McCall, 2018). Because of their organizational positionality and academic expertise, they uniquely understand the student learning experience, and they are positioned to advocate for policy, structural, or curricular changes needed to create more equitable learning environments. Third Space professionals work across departmental lines and can identify and develop opportunities for cross-campus partnerships and interdisciplinary collaborations (Bickford & Whisnant, 2010). They create new forms of scholarship (Eatman, 2012, 2014) and have pluralistic forms of scholarly impact (Arguinis, Shapiro, Antonacopoulou, & Cummings, 2014). They advance multiple university goals, often using scholarly approaches to improve a campus’s understanding of an issue and use their knowledge to develop praxis-based scholarship that shapes national and international change movements (Janke, 2019). Because they have advanced degrees and often teach and conduct research, they also enhance the college’s portfolio and can enrich its curriculum.

Like other non-binary identities, Third Space professionals fall outside normative social categories and therefore face interpersonal, cultural, and structural challenges specific to their work and professional identities. Their work is consistently miscategorized within the academy’s false labor binary, resulting in it being reduced to a “mere” administrative activity (Stefani & Matthew, 2002; Green & Little, 2017), or an “illegitimate” form of scholarship (Rowland et al., 1998; Harland & Staniforth, 2003). Faculty often frame Third Space professional contributions in oppositional (rather than complementary) terms (Handal, 2008). Because they are coded as “non-academic” and not tied to “home” departments, their expertise is rendered invisible in the epistemic economy of the university (Solomon et al., 2006). They rarely have access to institutional support structures for their academic work (e.g., teaching, research, grants, and fellowships), although their contracts often include these activities as part of their professional duties (Bickford and Whisnant, 2010). Third Space professionals are often barred from receiving institutional recognition, such as institutional designations, named professorships, and teaching and research awards, simply because of their class category (Post, Ward, Longo, & Saltmarsh, 2016). Despite their academic expertise and connection to the teaching and research mission of the university, they are systematically excluded from university governance structures (Bessette, 2020a). They also have no clear pathways for professional growth (Kim, 2020; Bessette, 2020b) and yet are often criticized for “abandoning” their institutions for professional gain. Because their labor often performs a “helping” function, it is often coded as “feminine” and devalued as a result (Tipper, 1999; Leit et al., 2007; Bernhagen & Gravett, 2017). Conversely, because traditional academic labor is culturally assumed to be more desired and desirable, Third Space professionals are often coded as “failed” academics (Whitchurch, 2015, p. 86).

This cultural denigration of their labor means they are frequently the subject of bullying and micro- aggressions by traditional faculty, but because faculty enjoy the protections of tenure there is no possibility of accountability for workplace abuses suffered by Third Space professionals (Henderson, 2005; Perry, 2020).

This issue seeks articles that identify and conceptualize problems cutting across the diverse forms of Third Space labor, and articles that propose pathways forward. Questions addressed by articles might include but are not limited to:

  • How might we redefine the nature of academic labor from a Third Space positionality, or how might we create language that more adequately describes Third Space academic labor?
  • What are the theoretical and practical connections that unify diverse forms of Third Space labor and professional identities?
  • What are the material, structural, and cultural barriers to supporting and legitimizing Third Space academic labor?
  • How might we organize and create solidarity between Third Space laborers nationally and internationally?

Inquiries or to Submit:

 For inquiries or to submit proposals, contact Aaron Stoller at astoller@coloradocollege.edu. Prospective contributors should submit a proposal of 1-2 pages plus bibliography and a 1-paragraph author bio to Aaron Stoller astoller@coloradocollege.edu. Final contributions should be between 5,000 – 8,000 words and follow APA style.

Timeline:

  • Call for Proposals: April – June 2022
  • Peer Review and Acceptance of Proposals: July – October 2022
  • Full Drafts of Papers: February 2023
  • Issue Publication: March 2023

Workplace: A Journal for Academic Labor

Workplace: A Journal for Academic Labor is a refereed, open access journal published by the Institute for Critical Education Studies (ICES) and a collective of scholars in critical university studies, or critical higher education, promoting dignity and integrity in academic work. Contributions are aimed at higher education workplace scholar-activism and dialogue on all issues of academic labor.

Email, RSS Follow

Comments Off on Workplace Special Issue: Third Space Academic Labor

Posted in Academic Labor, CFPs, Contingent labor, Corporate University, Critical University Studies, Research, Staff

Tagged , , ,

#UBC Dean Search shut down and Advisory Committee dissolved

Posted on December 11, 2020 by | Comments Off on #UBC Dean Search shut down and Advisory Committee dissolved

Responding to a Petition and attached Letter (below) questioning the decision to exclude an extremely competitive African Canadian applicant from the shortlist in the search for a new Dean of Education at UBC, President Ono shut down the search and dissolved the Advisory Committee. The UBC President also indicated that Provost and Committee co-Chair Ananya Mukherjee Reed resigned from the Committee, seemingly in support of the conclusions and questions raised by the Petition and its 150 signatories.

On 9 December 2020, the UBC President wrote to faculty, staff, and students:

Yesterday, I received Prof. Ananya Mukherjee Reed’s resignation as co-chair from the President’s Advisory Committee for the Recruitment of a Dean for the Faculty of Education. This is effective immediately. I met with the PAC Committee yesterday and heard from members regarding the viability of the search moving forward, and they felt that the search could not proceed. After careful consideration and consultation with the Committee, I have decided to end the current search for a new Dean at this time.

Of course, it is extremely rare for a Dean search to be cancelled in response to grass roots efforts. It is certainly a step in the right direction of accountability. A next step is answering the various questions raised about this Advisory Committee: Why did they do what they did? In the midst of Black Lives Matter, why did they exclude a competitive African Canadian applicant?

 

November 26, 2020
Dear President Ono,

This Letter and attached Petition are in response to the President’s Advisory Committee for the Selection of the next Dean of the Faculty of Education’s decision to exclude Dr. Samson Nashon from its shortlist. I write on behalf of the 150 faculty, students, staff, alumni, emeriti, and community members who signed this Petition to add Dr. Nashon to the shortlist. The Petition identifies flawed procedures underwriting the President’s Advisory Committee’s decision. For example, the Committee excluded African Canadian faculty, staff, and students

The University of British Columbia’s Strategic Plan, Shaping UBC’s Next Century, emphasizes “our intention to be a leader in diversity and equity” (Strategy 1: Great People, p. 41). Leadership in diversity and equity entails fighting against racism at all levels of administration, research, service, and teaching.

The 150 signatories to this Petition expect action to back up the commitments. We hope that you will address our collective concerns, convey them to the President’s Advisory Committee, and consider what can be done to redress the problem and rectify the injustice. This raises a serious procedural question of how a Committee that excluded Dr. Nashon from the shortlist can now fairly include and consider his candidacy?

The Petition with signatories is attached. On behalf of this groundswell of support for Dr. Nashon’s candidacy, thank you very much for addressing our concerns and request.

Respectfully, the [150] signatories of the Petition.

cc. Dr. Andrew Szeri, Provost and Vice-President Academic, UBC Vancouver (Co-chair)
Dr. Ananya Mukherjee Reed, Provost and Vice-President Academic, UBC Okanagan (Co-chair)

Email, RSS Follow

Comments Off on #UBC Dean Search shut down and Advisory Committee dissolved

Posted in Academic freedom, Academic Labor, Accountability, Administration, BC Education, Black Lives Matter, Campus Life, Critical University Studies, Diversity, Equity, Ethics, Faculty, Governance, Organizing, Race, Shared governance, Staff, Students, Working conditions

Tagged ,

Protest at #UBC Feb 2, Alumni bldg. 12:30 #ubcgss #ubysseynews #ubcnews #ubc100 #bced

Posted on January 29, 2016 by | Comments Off on Protest at #UBC Feb 2, Alumni bldg. 12:30 #ubcgss #ubysseynews #ubcnews #ubc100 #bced

Protest at UBC
Protest the BoG Meeting

Why: Demand UBC management and Board accountability
When: Tuesday, February 2 at 12:30 – 2:00
Where: Robert H. Lee Alumni Bldg, Centre, 6163 University Boulevard, UBC
How: Faculty, staff and students will gather w/ guests & speakers, etc.

UBC faculty, staff and students will protest the upcoming UBC Board of Governors Meeting, and will publicly demand that

  • the Board of Governors stops holding secret, undocumented meetings
  • the Board honours its duty to operate in a transparent and accountable fashion
  • an external review of its past practices takes place immediately

For more background on the issues leading to this protest, see this letter from the Faculty Association of UBC, which details how the BoG has, among other things, held committee meetings that left no official record, and made decisions about personnel matters without formal assessments or performance reviews.

Please share with all interested UBC people: faculty, students, alumni.

And faculty are encouraged to wear academic robes if they have them!

We have invited MLA David Eby, MLA Andrew Weaver, Minister Andrew Wilkinson, and President Arvind Gupta to join us and speak about these issues.

More details

Email, RSS Follow

Comments Off on Protest at #UBC Feb 2, Alumni bldg. 12:30 #ubcgss #ubysseynews #ubcnews #ubc100 #bced

Posted in Academic freedom, Accountability, Administration, Advocacy, BC Education, Budgets & Funding, Governance, Protests, Solidarity, Staff, Students, Unions

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

#UBC admin exuberance to blame for Kinesiology controversy over $$ and buildings #ubc100 #ubcnews @ubcinsiders #ubysseynews #bced

Posted on November 21, 2015 by | 1 comment

On 27 October, UBC Insiders broke the story of the collusion between the UBC School of Kinesiology, Faculty of Education, and the School’s Undergraduate Society (KUS). In March 2015, the students held a referendum on a $250 fee to help pay for a new building for the School and Faculty. UBC Insiders obtained files through FoI that suggest about 16 months’ worth of influence of the School and Faculty on the students to secure a “YES” majority on the referendum.

UBC Insiders found top down influence (i.e., top of admin down) that adds up to minimally $41,624 and a curious “Make Your Mark” campaign.

Asking for an explanation of why a School or Faculty would go to these lengths to influence a student referendum, E. Wayne Ross called for a Fact-Finding investigation. Short of an investigation, Faculty administrators offered a consultation report this week (see full report below).

It’s probably just as well that there is just consultation with the School and students in lieu of a fact-finding investigation, as when the University contracts out to fact-finding, mysteriously, there are never any facts to find concerning administrators.

In this most recent report, it’s all just written off as administrative pluck, exuberance and “an excess of enthusiasm.”

Funny that, as we say the same of faculty, staff, students and their academic freedom: exuberance with surplus enthusiasm!

By way of a series of consultations, the Faculty of Education reports:

To provide a follow-up report on the Faculty Meeting item regarding, “the alleged conflicts of interest and potential ethical breaches in the School of Kinesiology’s April 2015 student referendum.”

We have consulted with various offices at the University, to determine at the most fundamental level, the evidentiary foundation that would warrant designing and arranging to be carried out, a “fact-finding” investigation. Such an investigation would be very expensive and would need a clear warrant in terms of evidence of basic problems of procedure, relationship management, finance, and/or policy.

The UBC offices we have consulted include:

  1. UBC Office of University Counsel
  2. UBC Faculty Relations
  3. UBC Office of the Vice President, Students
  4. School of Kinesiology

Regarding the School of Kinesiology there are a number of questions that have been raised concerning the “Make your Mark” Referendum of the Kinesiology Undergraduate Society (KUS) campaign (to add to KIN student fees to raise funds towards a new building) and distributed via media outlets.

On the basis of our investigation to-date, it appears that:

  1. Since the KUS took the Referendum off the AMS ratification agenda, the whole issue of the fees linked with the KUS Referendum is moot.
  2. Since neither the UBC nor the AMS/KUS policies regarding “conflict of interest” preclude Faculty/School and Student Society partnerships, there is no apparent ground for continued concern about the narrative of conflict of interest on the part of the School.
  3. The KUS may have erred in the design of “Make Your Mark” vis a vis the AMS policy of “impartial elections” but we – the University/School faculty members — do not work in a supervisory relationship to the student societies, which do not report to us nor are they governed by faculty/Schools.

With respect to “conflict of interest” – UBC’s policy on conflict of interest (Policy 97)  is concerned with personal conflicts of interest – not institutional conflicts of interest.  There has been no suggestion anywhere that the School of Kinesiology nor its executives benefitted from this matter personally (for example by benefitting financially).

There is no policy or rule that we are aware of that would preclude UBC units from partnering with student unions on initiatives they both support.  There have been several examples of undergraduate student societies contributing to buildings (in return for guarantees of student amenities) through student fees and all of these initiatives involved very substantial interactions between the undergraduate student union, the AMS, the faculty and the UBC central administration.  So the fact that the School was working closely with its KUS undergraduate society would not of itself be noteworthy.

Accordingly, we see no problem at-hand nor any substantive basis for carrying out any further fact-finding or other investigation.

There are, definitely, larger issues that lurk in this scenario worthy of a broad and open discussion that pertains to the current context of post-secondary education and the dramatic withdrawal of support from the Province and Federally — increasing fiscal pressures that have caused academic units to be more creative about issues of revenues, whether this is by seeking increases in international tuition or by creating fund raising partnerships with student organizations or with alumni to build infrastructure. These are complex matters. They are not, however, the basis for a narrative of blame or fault lodged with any particular academic unit. If there is any fault at all to be lodged with particular units it could only be, on the face of the evidence, of an excess of enthusiasm to support our engagement in the project of public education.

Dr. Blye Frank
Dean, Faculty of Education

Dr. Mary K. Bryson
Senior Associate Dean, Administration & Innovation, Faculty of Education

Email, RSS Follow

1 Comment

Posted in Academic freedom, Accountability, Advocacy, BC Education, Budgets & Funding, Ethics, Staff, Students

#UBC BoG members are compromising interests and being dishonest #caut #ubcnews #bced #highered

Posted on September 4, 2015 by | Comments Off on #UBC BoG members are compromising interests and being dishonest #caut #ubcnews #bced #highered

To what degree is UBC’s Board of Governors compromising the interests of the University and less than honest with faculty, staff and students? The verdict seems to be out that the members of BoG are compromising the interests of the University. To what degree? To what end? If BoG members are less than honest with faculty, staff and students, how much before this becomes dishonesty?

By law, defined in the University Act, members of a Board of Governors at a BC university “must act in the best interests of the university.” The Faculty Association of UBC and CUPE are now questioning whether individual members of the UBC BoG are acting “in the best interests of the University.”

“Given the … incessant stream of rumour and innuendo that continues to swirl around the University, we do not believe that the maintenance of a mutually agreed to non-disclosure agreement around Professor Gupta’s resignation is in the best interests of the University, of Professor Gupta, or of the public,” the FAUBC presses.

In addition to acting in the best interests of the University, BoG members must be honest with the members (e.g., faculty members, students) and employees (e.g., faculty, staff, students) of the University. The FAUBC is suggesting that the BoG’s members are failing on both counts, being neither honest with faculty members nor acting in the best interests of the University. That’s a problem, one of the law, to be sure.

Questions of honesty are being raised as questions of manipulation, breaking a social contract and deceit are raised. The BoG Code of Conduct specifies that its members must act on the up and up.

One member, the Chair of the BoG John Montalbano, is already under investigation for allegations of taking steps to interfere with academic freedom. Here again, the question of honesty is raised.

A subsequent question is which member of the BoG is next?

Email, RSS Follow

Comments Off on #UBC BoG members are compromising interests and being dishonest #caut #ubcnews #bced #highered

Posted in Academic freedom, Accountability, Administration, Faculty, Governance, Staff, Students, Unions, Working conditions

Tagged , , , , , , ,