MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2608554359

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

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

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCollege Composition and Communication · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education and Employability
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWriting centerWorkforceKnightCenter (category theory)Higher educationPsychologyQuarter (Canadian coin)SociologyMedical educationPedagogyPolitical scienceMedicineLawHistory
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from 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. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.236
Threshold uncertainty score0.714

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.292 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it