A Link Between the Humanities Job Market and Accreditation?

In a two excellent posts, Brian Croxall (http://www.briancroxall.net/2009/12/28/the-absent-presence-todays-faculty/) and Cathy Davidson (http://www.hastac.org/blogs/cathy-davidson/future-humanities) discuss the crisis in the job market and the increase in the number of adjuncts being used at most colleges.

What I found so interesting about this piece was that I spent much of today working to prepare a small portion of my university's self-study for its reaccreditation for the Higher Learning Commission. For those familiar with the criterion for reaccreditation, I was working on Criterion 2 or, in layperson's lingo, the criterion focusing on institutional planning and continuous improvement. As far as I can tell, the percentages of tenure, tenure-track faculty, and adjunct faculty are NOT a key element of our reaccreditation report. I suspect that these numbers will be found somewhere in my university's report. However, I am pretty sure that those numbers will not be referenced in the chapter on planning and continuous improvement (primarily because of how the HLC defines the subject-matter of this chapter). It certainly was not discussed in much detail of the sample reports I received when I attended conferences on preparing for reaccreditation. Only after reading Croxall and Davidson's blogs did I notice this gaping absence.

Just for fun, I went to the IPEDS data collected by the Department of Education at http://nces.ed.gov/IPEDS/datacenter/InstitutionByName.aspx?stepId=1. I learned that Harvard University's faculty relies on more than 50% of non-tenure or tenure-track faculty. I also learned that my alma mater, the University of Kansas, has close to 30% of its faculty, not on the tenure-track. Both appear duly accreditated. Similarly, the local branch of University of Phoenix has no faculty on the tenure-track (according to the IPEDS data) and appears accreditated as well.

My question is this: should the accreditation process take more notice of this data?

I have no doubt that most accreditors would probably respond with something about the amount of adjuncts employed should be linked to institutional mission (thus allowing institutions to ignore this issue by and large).

Obviously, I think that accreditation should consider this issue. Despite the great work that many adjuncts and non-tenure-track folks do, they tend not to write re-accreditation reports. These folks are rarely empowered to start new programs, be innovative, or engage in entrepreneurial thinking (accreditors are very interested in seeing institutions adapt to the market-place). These folks might participate in assessment programs but probably do not help create and manage them (assessment is another big topic in reaccreditation reports). These folks, by and large, will not have the credentials to become the next generation of department chairs, program chairs, deans, and administrators (once again, continuity of leadership is important in many assessment reports). These folks probably do not have the job security to represent the institution in the community and create long-standing relationships with k-12 schools, non-profits, or local businesses (yes, this too seems important in reaccreditation). While R1 institutions may be so well-funded that they can pay special administrators engage in the items listed above, small liberal arts colleges, like where I work, rely heavily on faculty to do all these things. And, I think that faculty can help shape these activities so that the institutions remain focused on teaching and learning.

If teaching (defined here as writing syllabi, lecturing, leading discussion, and grading) were the primary functions of faculty today, then reaccreditation probably need not be too worried about the use of adjuncts and the growth of non-tenure track people. However, faculty are becoming managers, entrepreneurs, advisors, mentors, and community outreach specialists. And it appears that this might be accelerating due to the recent financial squeeze most institutions are facing. I am not sure how these functions of the contemporary university can be outsourced to adjuncts and remain healthy institutions.

I realize that institutions are facing financial pressures and this has shaped the current job market in the humanities. It seems to me one role of accreditation should be to assure that institutions are realizing their educational missions. Part of that accreditation inquiry should focus on who is doing the teaching, assessing, managing, mentoring, and community outreach. One way faculty might improve the academic job market in the long run is to have the major disciplinary organizations, such as MLA, AHA, APA, etc, play a greater role in discussions about reaccreditation.

While I harbor doubts about the efficacy of our current reaccreditation system, I nonetheless think that faculty might find it a useful arena for dealing with some of the issues we face.