Any sentient being should be offended. Eventually, the casualisation of the academic workforce was bound to find lazy
enthusiasts who neither teach, nor understand the value of a tenured position dedicated to that musty,
soon-to-be-forgotten vocation of the pedagogue. It shows in the designs of certain universities who confuse frothy
trendiness with tangible depth: the pedagogue banished from the podium, with rooms lacking a centre, or a focal point
for the instructor. Not chic, not cool, we are told, often by learning and teaching committees that perform neither
task. Keep it modern; do not sound too bright and hide the learning: we are all equal in the classroom, inspiringly even
and scrubbed of knowledge. The result is what was always to be expected: profound laziness on the part of instructors
and students, dedicated mediocrity, and a rejection of all things intellectually taxing.
Casualisation, a word that says much in of itself, is seen as analogue of broader outsourcing initiatives. Militaries do
it, governments do it, and the university does it. Services long held to be the domain of the state, itself an animation
of the social contract, the spirit of the people, have now become the incentive of the corporate mind, and, it follows,
its associated vices. The entire scope of what has come to be known as outsourcing is itself a creature of propaganda,
cheered on as an opportunity drawing benefits rather than an ill encouraging a brutish, tenuous life.
One such text is Douglas Brown and Scott Wilson’s The Black Book of Outsourcing. Plaudits for it resemble worshippers at a shrine planning kisses upon icons and holy relics. “Brown & Wilson deliver on the best, most innovative, new practices all aimed at helping one and all survive, manage and lead in
this new economy,” praises Joann Martin, Vice President of Pitney Bowes Management Services. Brown and Wilson take aim at a fundamental “myth”:
that “Outsourcing is bad for America.” They cite work sponsored by the Information Technology Association of America (of
course) that “the practice of outsourcing is good for the US economy and its workers.”
Practitioners and policy makers within the education industry have become devotees of the amoral dictates of supply and
demand, underpinned by an insatiable management class. Central to their program of university mismanagement is the
casual academic, a creature both embraced and maligned in the tertiary sectors of the globe.
The casual academic is meant to be an underpaid miracle worker, whose divining acts rescue often lax academics from
discharging their duties. (These duties are outlined in that deceptive and unreliable document known as a “workplan”, as
tedious as it is fictional.) The casual academic grades papers, lectures, tutors and coordinates subjects. The casual
provides cover, a shield, and an excuse for a certain class of academic manager who prefers the calling of pretence to
the realities of work.
Often, these casual academics are students undertaking a postgraduate degree and subject to inordinate degrees of stress
in an environment of perennial uncertainty. The stresses associated with such students are documented in the Guardian’s Academics Anonymous series and have also been the subject of research in the journal Research Policy. A representative sample of PhD students studying in Flanders, Belgium found that one in two experienced psychological
distress, with one in three at risk of a common psychiatric disorder. Mental health problems tended to be higher in PhD
students “than in the highly educated general population, highly education employees and higher education students.”
This is hardly helped by the prospects faced by those PhDs for future permanent employment, given what the authors of
the Research Policy article describe as the “unfavourable shift in the labour-supply demand balance, a growing popularity of short-term contracts, budget
cuts and increased competition for research sources”.
There have been a few pompom holders encouraging the casualisation mania, suggesting that it is good for the academic
sector. The explanations are never more than structural: a casual workforce, for instance, copes with fluctuating
enrolments and reduces labour costs. “Using casual academics brings benefits and challenges,” we find Dorothy Wardale,
Julia Richardson and Yuliani Suseno telling us in The Conversation. This, in truth, is much like suggesting that syphilis and irritable bowel syndrome is necessary to keep you on your
toes, sharp and streamlined. The mindset of the academic-administrator is to assume that such things are such
(casualisation, the authors insist, is not going way, so embrace) and adopt a prostrate position in the face of funding
cuts from the public purse.
Casualisation can be seen alongside a host of other ills. If the instructor is disposable and vulnerable, then so are
the manifestations of learning. Libraries and research collections, for instance, are being regarded as deadening,
inanimate burdens on the modern, vibrant university environment. Some institutions make a regular habit of culling their
supply of texts and references: we are all e-people now, bound to prefer screens to paper, the bleary-eyed session of
online engagement to the tactile session with a book.
The casual, sessional academic also has, for company, the “hot-desk”, a spot for temporary, and all too fleeting
occupation. The hot-desk has replaced the work desk; the partitions of the office are giving way to the intrusions of
the open plan. The hot-desker, like coitus, is temporary and brief. The casual academic epitomises that unstable
reality; there is little need to give such workers more than temporary, precarious space. As a result, confidentiality
is impaired, and privacy all but negated. Despite extensive research showing the negative costs of “hot-desking” and open plan settings, university management remains crusade bound to
implement such daft ideas in the name of efficiency.
Casualisation also compounds fraudulence in the academy. It supplies the bejewelled short cut route, the bypass, the
evasion of the rigorous things in learning. Academics may reek like piddling middle class spongers avoiding the issues
while pretending to deal with them, but the good ones at least make some effort to teach their brood decently and
marshal their thoughts in a way that resembles, at the very least, a sound whiff of knowledge. This ancient code, tested
and tried, is worth keeping, but it is something that modern management types, along with their parasitic cognates,
ignore. In Australia, this is particularly problematic, given suggestions that up to 80 percent of undergraduate courses in certain higher learning institutions are taught by casual academics.
The union between the spread sheet manager and the uninterested academic who sees promotion through the management
channel rather than scholarship, throws up a terrible hybrid, one vicious enough to degrade all in its pathway. This
sort of hybrid hack resorts to skiving and getting casuals to do the work he or she ought to be doing. Such people
co-ordinate courses but make sure they get the wallahs and helpers desperate for cash to do it. Manipulation is
guaranteed, exploitation is assured.
The economy of desperation is cashed in like a reliable blue-chip stock: the skiver with an ongoing position knows that
a casual academic desperate to earn some cash cannot dissent, will do little to rock the misdirected boat, and will have
to go along with utterly dotty notions. There are no additional benefits from work, no ongoing income, no insurance,
and, importantly, inflated hours that rarely take into account the amount of preparation required for the task.
The ultimate nature of the casualisation catastrophe is its diminution of the entire academic sector. Casuals suffer,
but so do students. The result is not mere sloth but misrepresentation of the worst kind: the university keen to
advertise a particular service it cannot provide sufficiently. This, in time, is normalised: what would students, who in
many instances may not even know the grader of their paper, expect? The remunerated, secure academic-manager, being in
the castle, can raise the drawbridge and throw the casuals to the vengeful crowd, an employment environment made safe
for hypocrisy.
Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.
Email: bkampmark@gmail.com
ends