College Contract Faculty in Ontario: Professional Identities and Precarious Employment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Partial-load college faculty simultaneously occupy insider/outsider positions in their respective higher education institutions. How do they perceive the relationship between their employment status and their work as educators? In recent scholarship, it has been argued that part-time faculty occupy liminal positions as simultaneous professionals and precarious labourers in higher education. None of the literature attends to how part-time college faculty (a cohort that makes up 70%+ of Ontario’s college faculty) who specifically aspire to full-time teaching positions think about their work and professional identities, much less in the context of the province of Ontario, Canada. Through semi-structured and open-ended interviews with ten partial-load college faculty who aspire to full-time teaching positions across three colleges in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), this study asks faculty to reflect upon the relationship between their conditions of employment and their work as educators. How partial-load college faculty think about their work and professional identities has direct import for what continues to be the foundational mission, purview, and day-to-day activities of colleges – teaching and learning. Holland, Lachicotte, Skinner, and Cain’s (1998) identity theory provides the framework for enabling a nuanced analyses as to how partial-load college faculty think about, make sense of, and narrate their experiences in the liminal space of precarious professionals. The results of this study show that partial-load faculty are largely excluded from the pedagogical communities of their departments and institutions and that every aspect of their work as educators (curriculum development, professional development, and relationships with colleagues) is negotiated and filtered through their precarious status. This research sheds light on the centrality of partial-load college faculty on the enactment of curriculum in colleges as well as explores how various stakeholders can make meaningful change to address the professional goals and curricular inclusion of this significant teaching cohort.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".