Title: Naming the Precarious: Language, Labour, and Policy in Canadian Higher Education
Author: Lisa Allen, EdD
Abstract:
This paper examines the term precarious faculty as a critical and necessary descriptor for the growing class of non-permanent academic staff in Canadian higher education. Through analysis of scholarly literature, I argue that precarious faculty represent a class-in-the-making whose structural vulnerability is not incidental but designed through policy choices and institutional norms. The term precarious captures the instability, marginalization, and evolving identity of this workforce better than terms such as adjunct, sessional, or contingent. I further argue that addressing academic precarity is not just an employment issue but a matter of educational equity and institutional ethics. This paper concludes with a call for senior leadership to enact systemic policy reforms that recognize, support, and integrate precarious faculty as central members of the academic community.
INTRODUCTION
When embarking on a doctoral degree, students are often advised to choose a research topic that deeply resonates with them—something they can live with, wrestle with, and speak to for years to come. The assumption is that this topic will not only dominate their intellectual life during the program, but will continue to shape their academic identity and contributions far beyond graduation. For my dissertation, I chose a title that raised more eyebrows than I expected: Being Precarious. Understandably, I am frequently asked why I chose the term precarious faculty—rather than adjunct, sessional, or contingent—to describe the group of teaching faculty at the heart of my study. My answer is rooted in both political intent and policy critique: language matters, and “precarious” captures something essential about the lived experiences, structural vulnerabilities, and policy failures that characterize this growing academic faculty class.
This analysis is situated within the theoretical frameworks of critical policy studies (e.g., Ball, 1997), class formation theory (Standing, 2011), and academic labour precarity scholarship (Kezar et al., 2019). These frameworks allow for an interrogation of the institutional logics that produce and sustain precarious academic labour in Canada.
This paper unpacks why the term precarious faculty is both appropriate and necessary in the Canadian higher education context, particularly in British Columbia. Drawing on scholarly definitions, policy literature, and personal experience, I argue that precarious faculty represent more than just a labour category—they constitute an academic class-in-the-making, whose presence and precarity challenge the assumptions underpinning institutional policy and leadership practice. In this light, I position the issue of precarious academic labour not merely as an employment matter, but as central to the problematic of educational policy: a site where institutional values, systemic inequities, and governance decisions collide.
First, this paper explains and contextualizes the term precarious faculty, contrasting it with alternative terminology and exploring its socio-political implications. Secondly, this paper offers a call to action for senior academic leadership, identifying concrete ways in which institutional policy and departmental practice must evolve in response to the systemic marginalization of precarious faculty. This paper argues that understanding—and addressing—the policy implications of precarity is critical not just for those in non-permanent roles, but for the health and equity of the academic system as a whole.
Naming Precarity: The Social Construction of a New Academic Class
In recent years, the Canadian higher education landscape has witnessed a significant shift in faculty employment structures. The rise of precarious academic positions—encompassing sessional instructors, adjuncts, and contract lecturers—has transformed the traditional academic workforce. These roles, often characterized by limited job security, inadequate compensation, and minimal institutional support, have become increasingly prevalent. This trend reflects broader systemic changes within academia, where economic imperatives often overshadow commitments to equitable labor practices (Kezar, DePaola, & Scott, 2019).
The Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) reports that “about one third of all academic staff in post-secondary institutions in Canada struggle to find decent work” (CAUT, n.d.). To draw on the definition of ‘precarious faculty’ I start with Indhu Rajagopal’s instigating 2002 book Hidden Academics: Contract Faculty in Canadian Universities, in which Rajagopal uses the term “part-time” faculty to refer to contract or sessional faculty in the university. However, in the current higher education system, one could be both “part-time” and regular¾that is: faculty can hold a tenured position and be part-time. There are many terms out there that describe work that is not permanent and full time. There are many different categories of work for faculty members¾sessionals, adjuncts, limited term appointments, lecturers, tenure-stream professors, and the list goes on and on. Of note, under the category of ‘faculty’ there are permanent regular types of faculty, and temporary and contract types of faculty.
Kezar, DePaola, and Scott (2019) categorize contract-type faculty in universities as the “Gig Academy” defining those who fall into this category as follows: “the characteristics of contingent, temporary, and part-time work in the Gig Academy include a reduced salary (often below a living wage) and benefits, unbundled and outsourced roles, forced entrepreneurship, deprofessionalization, minimal autonomy, and maximum external control” (p. 36). While contract-type faculty often share similar conditions and parameters on their employment, these characteristics are not consistent.
Field and Jones (2016) have written about precarious faculty in higher education in their study of “contingent” faculty in Ontario public universities. After some debate and discussion, they arrive on the term “contingent faculty” to describe all non-regular, or non-tenure or tenure-track faculty in higher education institutions:
It is worth noting that the terminology used to describe various forms of faculty appointments and career tracks is complex, and there is considerable variation by country, by province, and by institution. “Sessional” is a term used to refer primarily to those who are working on a contractual basis as instructors within the university, typically for those working on semester-by-semester contracts. “Contingent faculty” is a broader term, including sessional faculty and all non-permanent faculty members who are working on part-time or limited term contracts outside the tenure stream. (Field & Jones, 2016, p. 9)
While Field and Jones (2016) use the term “contingent” to describe non-regular faculty, it may be advantageous to adopt a more universal descriptive term for this group of faculty. In 2011, Guy Standing’s book The Precariat: The Dangerous New Class was published. In Standing’s book, they define the “precariat” in two ways: first as a distinct socio-economic group, and second—and most importantly¾as a class in-the-making. It is this second part of the definition of the ‘precariat’¾a class in-the-making¾that is most relevant to the contract and sessional faculty in higher education institutions in Canada. Because adjuncts and sessional faculty are a relatively new class of faculty in the higher education system, their role, the structures of their positions, and the ways in which they fit into the larger academic structures have evolved and continue to evolve, as evidenced by their addition to many institutional faculty association collective agreements across the country. However, an academic class consciousness is emerging. Part-time faculty are, as Field and Jones (2016) argue, certainly “contingent”, but they are also “precarious” in the sense that their positions are constantly in-the-making. It’s the in-the-making part of this definition that makes the term precarious faculty more desirable. Precarious faculty are collectively re-creating the academic profession through documenting and sharing their experiences, like I did when I published my autoethnographic accounts of being a precarious faculty member in my EdD dissertation (Allen, 2021).
Challenging the Status Quo: Policy, Leadership, and Institutional Accountability
The increasing reliance on precarious faculty in Canadian higher education institutions raises critical questions about institutional responsibility and the need for comprehensive policy reform. While budgetary constraints are often cited as justification for hiring contract faculty, this rationale overlooks the broader implications of such employment practices.
A recent report by the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations (OCUFA, 2023) highlights that the rise in precarious academic employment threatens the very quality of university education. Precarious faculty, despite their qualifications and dedication, often lack job security, fair compensation, and access to institutional resources. This not only undermines their professional development but also affects student learning experiences, as these faculty members may be less available for mentorship and academic support.
Moreover, in one of my own research papers (Allen, 2024), I emphasize that the two-tiered system of faculty employment fosters inequality and diminishes the collaborative spirit essential for academic excellence. These published findings from my doctoral research call for universities to invest in stable, full-time academic positions and to ensure equitable treatment for all faculty members, regardless of their employment status.
The proliferation of precarious academic positions is not merely a byproduct of economic constraints but is indicative of a deeper structural realignment within universities. Banerjee, Lam, and Lamb (2023) highlight that highly educated temporary workers in Canada, including contract faculty, face significant wage penalties compared to their permanently employed counterparts. This wage disparity underscores the undervaluation of precarious academic labor, despite the essential roles these individuals play in delivering quality education.
In light of these concerns, it is imperative for senior leadership within higher education institutions to take proactive steps toward policy reform. This includes reevaluating hiring practices, providing equitable access to resources and professional development opportunities, and fostering inclusive governance structures that recognize and address the contributions and challenges of precarious faculty.
Bauer (2011) suggests that it is the job of university administration to acknowledge the scale of what the university does on a day-to-day basis and the implications of these day-to-day activities. Because many of the issues that surround precarious faculty are structural, much of what needs to change in these systems has implications for those who are in control of departmental budgets and policy shaping within the institution. In higher education, that falls to those in senior leadership positions (Kezar, DePaola, & Scott, 2019).
Webber (2008) argues that strong university units and departments require continuity and stability in faculty. Findings of their interviews with academics suggest that often, in smaller departments, like Women’s Studies Departments, precarious faculty are hired last-minute, and this has a major impact on both the faculty member and the curriculum and organization of the course that the faculty member is hired to teach. Precarious faculty are often thrown into a course with little time to prepare. Without a doubt, this has a significant impact on the instructional aspect of the precarious faculty’s role in the university and therefore has a significant impact on their experiences as a faculty member.
Fleming et al. (2016) claims that those in leadership positions: VPs, Deans, and Department Heads should focus on facilitating newcomer networking when designing policy and implementing practices and procedures in their departments on campus. This means looking at the office space that’s allocated to precarious faculty, the resources that precarious faculty are provided, the hiring process, and the performance evaluation process. New faculty benefit when they are able to be socialized into the departments that they are hired into and can work with mentors within the department. According to Fleming et al. (2016), job dissatisfaction and the greatest potential for turnover comes from the lack of formal and informal mechanisms for supporting new faculty and their socialization into the departments in which they are hired.
Conclusion
The normalization of precarious academic labour in Canadian universities is not a marginal concern—it is a defining feature of the current post-secondary landscape. As this paper has argued that the term precarious faculty is not only apt, but necessary: it captures the structural vulnerabilities, policy failures, and evolving class consciousness of a group whose work is central to academic operations, yet persistently undervalued.
Framing precarious faculty as a class-in-the-making challenges universities to confront the deep contradictions embedded in their labour structures and governance systems. In an era marked by post-pandemic economic recovery, escalating housing costs, and mounting pressure on public institutions to demonstrate social value, how can universities reconcile their stated commitments to equity and inclusion with their growing dependence on insecure academic labour? What does it mean for academic freedom, mentorship, and intellectual continuity when the majority of undergraduate teaching is done by faculty who may not return the following semester?
These questions demand more than rhetorical reflection. They require further investigation, policy attention, and courageous leadership. Future research might explore the long-term institutional impacts of precarious faculty staffing on student outcomes, faculty well-being, and departmental culture. Comparative analyses between provinces, institutions, or even global higher education systems could help identify both promising practices and shared challenges.
Ultimately, the recognition of precarious faculty as a legitimate and vital academic constituency invites a reimagining of institutional priorities. If universities are to remain credible sites of critical thought, public service, and knowledge creation, then confronting and redressing the structures of academic precarity is not optional—it is foundational. The question now is not whether change is needed, but whether institutions have the will to act.