Precarious Academics: Information Practices and Challenges

Abstract

This paper reports the results of a small-scale study of the information practices of contract academic staff in the United Kingdom, which is being used as the basis for a broader study in the Canadian context. Neoliberal approaches to the management of higher education across the globe, including Canada, are contributing to a highly challenging environment for contract academic staff, who face marginalization, insecurity, and significant stress. The study seeks togive voice to this growing complement of contract academic staff, to identify practical responses to these challenges. Cet article présente les résultats d'une étude à petite échelle des pratiques d'information du personnel universitaire contractuel au Royaume-Uni, qui sert de base à une étude plus large dans le contexte canadien. Les approches néolibérales de la gestion de l'enseignement supérieur à travers le monde, y compris au Canada, contribuent à créer un environnement très difficile pour le personnel académique contractuel, confronté à la marginalisation, à l'insécurité et à un stress important. L'étude cherche à donner la parole à ce complément croissant de personnel académique contractuel, afin d'identifier des réponses pratiques à ces défis.

Academic Casualization, Precarity, and Information Practices: A Scoping Review

“…Preferences for (e.g., Loh, 2004) and circumstances which require (e.g., Langan & Morton, 2009; Mapes, 2019) seeking of information through informal, social sources have been noted. Yet, for some CAS, even these sources were seen as unavailable (e.g., Mason & Megoran, 2021) or challenging to identify (Willson & Julien, 2020), creating more isolation from important workplace information. Additionally, direct discussion of official policies and documents involved in interactions between CAS and higher education institutions is rare, and detailed information from institutions about their contract appointments is often lacking (Brownlee, 2015).…”

“…The literature around CAS reinforces views of precarity as something that is differentially experienced (e.g., Rose, 2020), dehumanizing (Mason & Megoran, 2021), and self‐perpetuating (Schofield, 2022). The uncertainty CAS experience centers around not only work contracts, but also roles, status within departments, how to find information, and career development, making professional (and personal) planning incredibly difficulty (Loveday, 2018; Willson & Julien, 2020). The complex and intersecting realities of many CAS suggest the need to engage approaches such as information marginalization (Gibson & Martin, 2019) and information precarity (Stewart‐Robertson, 2022) which highlight the systemic and institutional processes (e.g., Willson, 2018, 2019) inhibiting access to information and leading to marginalization.…”

Academic Casualization, Precarity, and Information Practices: Initial Findings

“…2014) within their academic units and not given the information, resources, or supports needed to successfully complete their work and develop their careers (Heffernan, 2018; Willson, 2016). Despite concerns about resulting impacts on quality of education (Riddell, 2017) and the profound and differentially experienced effects on the professional and personal lives of CAS (Loveday, 2018; Willson & Julien, 2020), universities are increasingly reliant on CAS for teaching (al‐Gharbi, 2020) and their bottom lines (Smithers et al, 2021). Moreover, while often still desiring tenure‐track appointments, CAS increasingly remain in such positions long‐term (Spina et al, 2022), shattering myths of such work as a steppingstone to full‐time employment, limiting their possibilities for advancement, and compounding the impacts on their personal lives.…”

Pulling back the curtain on conducting social impact research

“…This orientation negates simply selecting an “under‐studied” community and swooping it to do research that will be quickly publishable; it means looking at issues that will have social impact for particular communities and intentionally choosing to include social impact as a mandate for research from the beginning. While there has been an increase in research with marginalized and under‐studied communities in information behavior research (e.g., Bronstein, 2019; Gibson & Martin, 2019; Greyson, Clark, & Saewyc, 2017; Willson & Julien, forthcoming), much remains to be explored about having a social impact orientation to research, what this means for including communities in the research process, and the logistics of how inclusion takes place.…”