Although I don't write in the area, I've been interested from the start of my career in academic labour and although I'm a so-so academic, I'm an excellent observer and the more literature I read about academic labour, the more I think there is a hidden class of academic, I'm not sure what to call this hidden class, I'm also not sure if they are simply a product of my imagination but the more I observe the more I am convinced they exist and walk amongst us.
My issue with a lot of the academic labour material is that it depends to concentrate heavily on traditional academics and a rather narrow cast of stock characters - the exploited adjunct, the selfish research superstar and the burnout who wanted to change the world but couldn't. Increasingly (and positively) there is more intersection with gender, race, sexuality but still broadly tied to our stock characters. Now given that the exploitation of adjuncts underpins and props up the University system, it seems right to me there is a heavy concentration on that group (similarly for attempt to move us away from thinking of the academic in relation to white straight middle aged men). However it equally occurs to me that a lot of debate is about how to get the selfish research superstar to help the exploited but this conceptualisation misses out another group who I think in many respects holds more power to enable change.
I'll be perfectly upfront and say there is no rigorous research - this is pure deductive reasoning based on observation, interaction with others and interaction with others as a trade unionist representing members. With that caveat, you are well to rubbish or ignore this. This seems feels right to me.
So who is this invisible academic who I think is missing from the literature? I think they have (most of - but not always all) of the following characteristics:
- They never are people who went 'straight through' - they always are people who have come back to academia after doing something else as a career;
- They tend to cluster around 'professional' areas (management, health, COMPSCI);
- They did a PhD because it was offered and someone else was paying or it was very cheap;
- They have no intrinsic motivation in research so either do very little or do enough to be 'respectful';
- They however know that it's important to *sound* interested in research so have a good understanding of the process and wider context;
- They have no little or no interest in who the names in their field and the concept doesn't mean much to them;
- They have little or no experience of being an adjunct because they were a) recruited for their professional experience and b) if there was no full-time job, they would just carry on in previous profession;
- They don't tend to suffer from burnout (in the sense of the gap between expectation and reality) because they had no particular expectations from academia and their unit of analysis isn't other academics, it's their previous career;
- They tend to position themselves as the person or people in the department who keep everything running because they see that as way to off-set relatively weak research profile;
- They tend to put more stock in an individual concept of professionalism that any sense of duty to a wider nebulous field;
- They are very political at local level because they see that as the most natural way to ensure their employment continues. The Dean always knows their name even if he doesn't know yours;
- The dean knows that they can be trusted to make things go away (within limits) and are discreet.
Maybe this invisible academic is in my head... maybe.