Editor for this issue: Karen Milligan <karen
linguistlist.org>
I was very interested in reading Alain Th�riault's comments on job descriptions for course lecturers. As he pointed out, lecturers often teach up to 50% of courses in some departments, and this percentage is increasing every year. I would add that universities often hire "overqualified" lecturers as cheap labour, because they don't have the resources to hire tenure-track faculty. In Quebec Province for instance, course lecturers in several universities have gone on strike or are threatening to do so in order to improve their wages and job security. Their demands are perfectly legitimate, if one applies the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. No matter how you look at it, and even if one takes into account the administrative and research obligations of professors, course lecturers are underpaid (by 50% in some cases!) and are often forced to work in unacceptable conditions (short-term contracts, sharing offices with 3 or 4 colleagues). It should also be pointed out that lecturers do have *some* benefits and job security in most universities in Quebec and Canada, *except* at McGill University where lecturers have no official status, no benefits whatsoever (no sick leave or maternity leave, no access to research funds, no dental or medical plans, etc.). Yet, some have worked in this institution for many years. This may seem surprising since McGill is in fact a wealthy institution, but it says a lot about the precarious status of lecturers at McGill and at other universities. What is the situation in the United States? Patrick-Andr� Mather Lecturer English and French Language Centre McGill University, Montreal patrick-andre.matherMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issuemcgill.ca
Alain Theriault wonders about the role of lecturers as non-tenure-track faculty in Linguistics. I'm not sure which university's ad he was referring to, but it might be worth pointing out that in English speaking countries outside North America, "Lecturer" is the rough equivalent of "Assistant Professor"--i.e., it is a tenurable position, and the probation period is usually about half as long as those in North America (in my experience, one is usually permanent staff in three to four years, as opposed to six to seven in N America). Thus, Lecturer positions in such universities are usually teaching/research posts, not simply teaching relief for tenured professors. M. Lynne Murphy Lecturer in Linguistics School of Cognitive and Computing Sciences University of Sussex Brighton, UKMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue
Dear All: Sorry to jump the line, but something Alain said in his otherwise unexceptionable posting I think deserves a separate comment Alain Th�riault <theriaalMail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issueMAGELLAN.UMontreal.CA> said: [snip] >universities are trying to select candidates that are overqualified >(I don't see why a candidate should "have a demonstrated potential >for and a strong commitment to research" in order to teach, nor do I >see how this is relevant, unless the candidate is expected to do some >research, which the job announcement doesn't mention). As I indicated, Alain, as usual in his postings, has made some valid and (what ought to be) thought-provoking comments, and I believe he is mostly right on the mark. This comment, however, I consider to be seriously misguided, although quite widespread in the acceptance of its (for me, false) premises. Specifically, I believe, based on personal experience and perhaps some general theoretical suppositions, that it is not possible, either for a teacher to be as good as they could be without doing research, or for a researcher to do the best research they could do without also doing some teaching. That is, teaching, especially if it is imparting one's research results, leads to a certain give-and-take in the classroom which can only be revealing for that research. On the other hand, doing research opens avenues of explanation for the teacher, as well as tending to make them current in both methodological and theoretical aspects of the field. In the current atmosphere of globalization, which in education often results in attempts at privatization of the universities, or at least trying to make them 'cost-effective', trying to save money by the tactics which Alain has pointed out, and which of course will have deleterious effects on the job prospects of 'older' candidates (I guess, read: over 40) is only likely to become more prevalent. However, independent of one's opinion about the correctness, morality or what have you of such tactics, it would be misguided for the profession, both in its research aspects and in its teaching aspects, to further foment the separation of research and teaching. This is seen more and more often in many countries, where 'research institutes' are frequently founded within the university, in which some of the members take some part in graduate education, and virtually none in undergraduate education. Such a situation is also seen even in Faculties (defined as having both undergraduate and graduate programs), where the graduate programs are often relatively unrelated to the undergraduate ones, especially in terms of the teaching loads of the professors in them. Of course, it has always been the case for the vast majority of high-level researchers that they have viewed teaching, and especially undergraduate teaching, as a distraction from their 'proper' research duties. Nowadays, some such people have come to understand the usefulness for their research of undergraduate (and of course graduate) teaching. This, of course, does not even consider the benefits it has for the field, in terms of interesting young persons in pursuing a career in that field. Jim James L. Fidelholtz e-mail: jfidel
siu.buap.mx Posgrado en Ciencias del Lenguaje tel.: +(52-2)229-5500 x5705 Instituto de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades fax: +(01-2) 229-5681 Benem�rita Universidad Aut�noma de Puebla, M�XICO