MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2608554359

Toward an Investigation into the Working Conditions of Non-Tenure Line, Contingent Writing Center Workers

2016· article· en· W2608554359 sur OpenAlex
Dawn Fels, Clint Gardner, Maggie M. Herb, Liliana M. Naydan

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueCollege Composition and Communication · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueHigher Education and Employability
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésWriting centerWorkforceKnightCenter (category theory)Higher educationPsychologyQuarter (Canadian coin)SociologyMedical educationPedagogyPolitical scienceMedicineLawHistory
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

For years, we have been concerned about the increasing contingent nature of writing center workers' positions. In 2014, Isaacs and Knight found that 71 percent of writing center directors held non-tenurable positions and 81 percent of writing centers were staffed by peer tutors (48-49). Isaacs and Knight's report illustrates a sharp contrast from the results of the 2001-2002 survey for the Writing Centers Research Project (WCRP). Of writing center directors who responded to that survey, 41.97 percent held tenured or tenure-line positions (Ervin 2). While the two studies took different approaches to data collection, the apparent decline in tenured or tenureline positions among writing center directors over the past decade justified, for us, the need to investigate this shift and to speak directly to contingent writing center directors and tutors to learn more about their working conditions.While our investigation focuses on contingent writing center workers, its significance connects with others beyond this group. Indeed, employment trends in the writing center field mirror those of the wider higher education workforce and the growing awareness of the precarity of contingent positions. In 2014, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) published a report on the Employment Status of Instructional Staff Members in Higher Education, Fall 2011. That study illustrated the continued decrease in tenure-line positions: of all instructional staff employed in 2011, only 23.5 percent held tenured or tenure-line positions, 15.7 percent held non-tenure-line full-time positions, 41.5 percent held part-time adjunct positions, and 19.3 percent were graduate student employees (2). According to the AAUP, contingent faculty face a number of vulnerabilities that tenure-track faculty do not. Our study hopes to identify the vulnerabilities among writing center workers who serve in insecure, unsupported positions with little job security and few protections for academic freedom (Contingent, par. 1).Despite a recent increase in activism and awareness on behalf of contingent instructional faculty in the larger composition field, the labor of writing center workers specifically remain under-represented in our scholarship and under-investigated. Although the National Census of Writing Database (formerly the WPA Census) does report data concerning the status of writing center director positions, we know the data was not necessarily provided by the writing center directors themselves. Moreover, the database does not appear to have solicited data on peer tutors from peer tutors. Isaacs and Knight (2014) also reported on the number of students who staff writing centers but not on their working conditions. In fact, there has been no comprehensive study of the working of peer tutors. Most research on peer tutoring is either about training or focuses on the long-term educational/learning impact of working as a peer tutor, not on working or material conditions. Our study is gathering insights from all levels of contingent writing center workers-directors, staff, and tutors-about the realities of their material and working conditions.Before launching our study, we looked to professional organizations for guidelines on the material and working of contingent faculty. We started with the International Writing Centers Association (IWCA). They are located on the Position Statements page of the organization's website (writingcenters.org). We looked there for a statement on the working of writing center directors and did not find one. We later discovered that one exists. Thirty years ago, when the IWCA was a fledgling national organization, Jeanne Simpson published What Lies Ahead for Writing Centers: Position Statement on Professional Concerns in the Writing Center Journal. The statement appears on the IWCA's website as a resource for those who wish to start a writing center. In the statement, Simpson acknowledges the professional strides made by the writing center field during the previous decade and urges the organization to take up the professional concerns of writing center directors to preserve the increasing professionalism that some directors enjoyed and to alleviate the dreadful conditions under which others labored. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,236
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,714

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,055
Tête enseignante GPT0,347
Écart entre enseignants0,292 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle