Over the past few years, COVID-19 has had significantly affected community college, liberal arts college, and university instruction.
Many institutions of higher education have pivoted to on-line and hybrid instruction. With the introduction of the vaccine, mask mandates, testing, and hygiene theatre during the past few semesters, there was an assumption that by the Spring of 2022, teaching at universities could go back to normal (e.g., in person instruction) or close to it. The appearance of Omicron, the current strain of the Corona virus, in late 2021 has once again forced universities to rethink how instruction should proceed.
Universities have had to remain flexible with respect to the courses they offer and who is going to teach them. One challenging area that has been called into question is who exactly is teaching the classes? With administrators, faculty, and staff out sick, suffering from long COVID conditions, or being extra cautious about face-to-face instruction, changing enrollment patterns, and the constant need to find part-timers or adjuncts, because of the challenges of staffing, the ability to find appropriate instructors for classes has been a daunting task.
Many people, from administrators, to professors, to students, to parents (who are often the ones footing the bill), are rightly asking, given the current pandemic, who exactly is teaching our classes.
Here are some basic facts. Universities depend on both full-time and part-time people to teach classes. Full-time instruction is typically done by professors at different stages of their career. Part-time teaching is usually provided by individuals on short term contracts including, doctoral holding experts, advanced graduate students, or other experts (typically with an advanced degree).
Just because someone is a professor does not necessarily mean that they are good instructors. They may be Nobel prize winning researchers, raise lots of grant money (a portion of which goes to the university in terms of overhead), but have challenges communicating their knowledge to nonspecialists. On the other end of the spectrum, a reasonably educated person, with minimal subject knowledge may, when pressed into service, rise to the occasion and make a stellar performance teaching a university level class.
Throughout the United States, and other countries that have similar post-secondary types of education, we have lots of excellent adjuncts and part-time instructors. These individuals can have a Ph.D., be in the process of earning a doctorate, or they may have a masters but they have subject matter expertise (e.g., current or former practitioners).
On the plus side, there is an assumption that teaching part-time can be a good training ground for wanna be professors. If you have earned a PhD, or are in the process, are looking for a full-time contract or tenure-track job, and need to demonstrate that you can teach, then teaching part-time either at your university or another one may look good on your vita.
In fact, many universities, formally train their doctoral level students how to teach. They may start them off as teaching assistants asking them to grade quizzes, mid-terms or term papers. They may even be required to lead a seminar or a lab. This is a good proving ground. Over time, (one or more semesters) the department in which the student is enrolled, may even feel comfortable asking the graduate student to teach their own course. In this manner they are eased into teaching.
Also keep in mind, that in some particularly large urban centers (e.g., New York, Los Angeles, Washington, DC, etc.), there is a large pool of qualified adjuncts from surrounding campuses and/or from the at large population, so much so that there are literally scores of people with Ph.D.’s who cobble together a paltry income teaching a variety of courses at different institutions of higher education.
Let’s face it, in general, and regardless of the labor market, part-timers are cheaper to hire, and allow entities to accommodate to unpredictable demands for a product or service. The business or organization can staff up when demand is high, and let go of employees when the demand decreases. Adjuncts, who are part of the precariat, often bear the brunt of this process. They have little job security and considerable financial insecurity. They may be asked at the last minute to teach a class, or told right before a semester starts that a course they were scheduled to teach (and may have already prepped for) is cancelled or reassigned to someone else. That is why we have seen the formation of graduate student and adjunct unions in numerous universities and university systems.
Why don’t universities just hire adjuncts to teach all the classes? Is it because they are afraid of unions? No. There are lots of reasons why universities don’t simply replace the full time teaching staff with part timers. To begin with it’s a nightmare to manage such a diverse labor pool. And, professors (the full-timers) do lots more than teach (i.e., they engage in research and service, both of which have numerous implications for the university as a whole). In an attempt to build in another layer of quality control, most good universities are accredited. And accrediting agencies, like Middle States, tells universities that only a portion of the courses can be taught by part-timers.
But Omicron has made staffing even more challenging. Some universities have been forced to hire less than expert or unwilling graduate students to teach. In some cases these students have pressured graduate students to prepare and teach classes at the last minute. Many of them have never taught before, but are financially insecure and need additional income available.
True, younger grad students may have more abilities in online teaching and/or understand the challenges better than older professors. They may know their way around Zoom and other on-line technology especially the ability to create breakout groups, record
What is the result? There are two problems that students are confronted with here. The person who is teaching may not be adequately qualified to teach. And graduate students engaged in overwhelming assignments cannot make progress on their own course work, advance in their candidacy, or dissertations.
So how can we best address this current challenge.
This is the moment where department chairs, deans, provosts need to step up. Specifically:
1. Provide adequate training for new graduate student teachers and/or pathways to ease into teaching
2. Understand the needs of students and the reasons for low enrollment. Perhaps ask the students which modality is preferred and/or what their schedules look like. Times have changed and people have full-time lives, and
3. Adequately compensate grad students and give them enough warning to prepare for academically and financially for the semester.
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/pexels-pixabay-207691-1-scaled.jpg18282560Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2022-01-21 16:20:292022-10-02 12:21:15Who’s teaching this college course anyways? And why does it matter?
In general, if someone or an organization like a business, can make a buck they will.
From the agricultural to utility sectors, this approach is the backbone of capitalism.
Recently, this phenomenon has been increasingly visible in the field, actions, and products produced in the realm of street culture (i.e., the beliefs, dispositions, ideologies, informal rules, practices, styles, symbols, and values associated with, adopted by, and engaged in by individuals and organizations that spend a disproportionate amount of time on the streets of large urban centers, Ross, 2018, p. 8).
From streetwear to street art, from street music to concert halls, and from ghettos and barrios to now gentrified parts of cities, there are an increasing number of items, situations/experiences, and places once derived (or originating) from, or that embody elements of street culture, but are then modified, marketed, and sold as products and services to interested consumers.
On the upside, this process of commodification (e.g., turning something into an object of value) can provide jobs, income, and opportunities for some individuals and communities.
And, I don’t have a beef with this approach as long as the original creators are
• acknowledged for their original ideas and hard work,
• fairly compensated for their ideas and work,
• treated fairly after their products and items make their way into the market place, and
• the products and services don’t lead to damaging externalities (i.e., killing the environment, etc.).
But that’s rarely the case.
Commodification of street culture usually results in a:
A. Distorting (or exaggerating) the original intent and meanings of the things and services emanating from street culture. In a world where honesty and authenticity are increasingly in short supply, these modifications can distort intended meanings. This includes a process that selected elements of the original products are overly simplified, reduced to tropes, or more specifically kitschified. Sometimes this process borders on cultural appropriation.
B. More importantly, the generative products and services usually do not appropriately compensate the original creators. And this is bad. Frequently there are no or minimal copyright, patent, and trademark protections for many creators and thus they can’t reap an economic benefit. Individuals and organizations who profit from activities just described are often referred to as culture vultures.
On the positive side, we are seeing scholars in different social science and fields examine the commodification of lots of processes, including selected elements of street culture, and this is great to see. More light, however, needs to be shed on this topic in order to better contextualize its’ dynamics and better guide its development.
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/IMG_7705.jpg8111635Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2022-01-13 21:57:552024-09-07 04:35:22The downsides of commodifying Street Culture
A year has passed since an angry mob of pro Trump supporters, believing that the 2020 election was stolen, stormed the United States Capitol, and broke through a cordon of underprepared and understaffed Capitol Police. For four hours, the mob attacked law enforcement, vandalized the building, its chambers and offices, stole documents, and terrorized members of Congress, staffers, and support personnel who were working there that day.
While former President Donald Trump, selected Republicans and Right Wing news media outlets and pundits have tried to downplay the events of that day, numerous institutions have responded, including Congress that established the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol.
In analyzing and reflecting upon the January 6 insurrection what are some of the most important unanswered questions (and possible solutions for seeking an answer) about this event?
I have eight of them, which I list below from least to most important.
8. What sorts of rehabilitative or deradicalization programs will be instituted in correctional facilities and offered or given to the insurrections who have been sentenced to prison time? Perhaps the Federal Bureau of Prisons can examine what worked or didn’t work in countries like Germany and Italy, that had a relatively recent history of right-wing extremists in their correctional facilities?
7. What kinds of new physical security (e.g., hardening of the target), policies and practices have been initiated in order to prevent a similar breach of the US Capitol in the future? On a related note, why is there a reluctance to design and build a physical barrier around Congress like there is in other countries?
6. What types of reforms have been introduced in the Capitol Police Department? We know that over the last year the former chief resigned and a new Chief has been selected, but news media reports that there is currently a staffing shortage of 400 officers. What efforts are underway to address this loss of personnel? And what sorts of new training have Capitol Police Officers been given over the past year?
5. What short and long term psychological effects have police (and national guard members) who were battling the insurrectionists on January 6th experienced? Yes, we have be treated to a litany of snippets of congressional testimony and interviews by the news media, but a more comprehensive analysis of the trauma that police experienced will be helpful to gauge damage and offer adequate emotional support.
4. What were both the psychological and structural reasons motivating the insurrectionists? Although we have lots of speculations produced by thoughtful people, and National Public Radio and the Chicago Project on Security & Threats, have compiled data bases, it does not appear that we currently have one or more researchers who have compiled a data base that includes more that demographic information on the participants. A more comprehensive data source may have to wait until more individuals are incarcerated and researchers interview a significant portion of them.
3. Why does it appear that so few people who participated in the event have been arrested, charged, and convicted? Is it because the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) (and other co-operating law enforcement agencies) are too slow, understaffed, overwhelmed, incompetent, focused on other important crimes, etc. or is it because the FBI is not able to identify the remaining participants, or is it because the agency is assembling more detailed background information on these individuals, including surveillance, before they initiate an arrest? Are the individuals who have not been arrested etc. more highly skilled than others at operating below the radar? If this is the case why has the FBI not told the public, in general terms, why they have not arrested more people?
2. What evidence is necessary for formal criminal charges to be laid against Republican members of Congress, members of the White House, and the former president in connection with their role in fomenting the violence? Perhaps this will be part of the insurrection commission’s work.
1. Why have none of the insurrectionists been charged with some of the more common political crimes like sedition or treason? Is it because these kinds of crimes are difficult to seek convictions for?
Hopefully, over time these questions will be answered in a satisfactory manner. Inevitably, this process will depend as much upon the resources that are available to researchers, as their respective motivations for engaging in this kind of work.
Photo Credit
Photographer: Blink O’fanaye
Title: Capitol Jan 6
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/50817461431_a5ea856848_o.jpg600900Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2022-01-05 21:21:422022-01-06 14:38:09Unanswered questions regarding the January 6, 2021 insurrection
Who’s teaching this college course anyways? And why does it matter?
/by Jeffrey Ian RossOver the past few years, COVID-19 has had significantly affected community college, liberal arts college, and university instruction.
Many institutions of higher education have pivoted to on-line and hybrid instruction. With the introduction of the vaccine, mask mandates, testing, and hygiene theatre during the past few semesters, there was an assumption that by the Spring of 2022, teaching at universities could go back to normal (e.g., in person instruction) or close to it. The appearance of Omicron, the current strain of the Corona virus, in late 2021 has once again forced universities to rethink how instruction should proceed.
Universities have had to remain flexible with respect to the courses they offer and who is going to teach them. One challenging area that has been called into question is who exactly is teaching the classes? With administrators, faculty, and staff out sick, suffering from long COVID conditions, or being extra cautious about face-to-face instruction, changing enrollment patterns, and the constant need to find part-timers or adjuncts, because of the challenges of staffing, the ability to find appropriate instructors for classes has been a daunting task.
Many people, from administrators, to professors, to students, to parents (who are often the ones footing the bill), are rightly asking, given the current pandemic, who exactly is teaching our classes.
Here are some basic facts. Universities depend on both full-time and part-time people to teach classes. Full-time instruction is typically done by professors at different stages of their career. Part-time teaching is usually provided by individuals on short term contracts including, doctoral holding experts, advanced graduate students, or other experts (typically with an advanced degree).
Just because someone is a professor does not necessarily mean that they are good instructors. They may be Nobel prize winning researchers, raise lots of grant money (a portion of which goes to the university in terms of overhead), but have challenges communicating their knowledge to nonspecialists. On the other end of the spectrum, a reasonably educated person, with minimal subject knowledge may, when pressed into service, rise to the occasion and make a stellar performance teaching a university level class.
Throughout the United States, and other countries that have similar post-secondary types of education, we have lots of excellent adjuncts and part-time instructors. These individuals can have a Ph.D., be in the process of earning a doctorate, or they may have a masters but they have subject matter expertise (e.g., current or former practitioners).
On the plus side, there is an assumption that teaching part-time can be a good training ground for wanna be professors. If you have earned a PhD, or are in the process, are looking for a full-time contract or tenure-track job, and need to demonstrate that you can teach, then teaching part-time either at your university or another one may look good on your vita.
In fact, many universities, formally train their doctoral level students how to teach. They may start them off as teaching assistants asking them to grade quizzes, mid-terms or term papers. They may even be required to lead a seminar or a lab. This is a good proving ground. Over time, (one or more semesters) the department in which the student is enrolled, may even feel comfortable asking the graduate student to teach their own course. In this manner they are eased into teaching.
Also keep in mind, that in some particularly large urban centers (e.g., New York, Los Angeles, Washington, DC, etc.), there is a large pool of qualified adjuncts from surrounding campuses and/or from the at large population, so much so that there are literally scores of people with Ph.D.’s who cobble together a paltry income teaching a variety of courses at different institutions of higher education.
Let’s face it, in general, and regardless of the labor market, part-timers are cheaper to hire, and allow entities to accommodate to unpredictable demands for a product or service. The business or organization can staff up when demand is high, and let go of employees when the demand decreases. Adjuncts, who are part of the precariat, often bear the brunt of this process. They have little job security and considerable financial insecurity. They may be asked at the last minute to teach a class, or told right before a semester starts that a course they were scheduled to teach (and may have already prepped for) is cancelled or reassigned to someone else. That is why we have seen the formation of graduate student and adjunct unions in numerous universities and university systems.
Why don’t universities just hire adjuncts to teach all the classes? Is it because they are afraid of unions? No. There are lots of reasons why universities don’t simply replace the full time teaching staff with part timers. To begin with it’s a nightmare to manage such a diverse labor pool. And, professors (the full-timers) do lots more than teach (i.e., they engage in research and service, both of which have numerous implications for the university as a whole). In an attempt to build in another layer of quality control, most good universities are accredited. And accrediting agencies, like Middle States, tells universities that only a portion of the courses can be taught by part-timers.
But Omicron has made staffing even more challenging. Some universities have been forced to hire less than expert or unwilling graduate students to teach. In some cases these students have pressured graduate students to prepare and teach classes at the last minute. Many of them have never taught before, but are financially insecure and need additional income available.
True, younger grad students may have more abilities in online teaching and/or understand the challenges better than older professors. They may know their way around Zoom and other on-line technology especially the ability to create breakout groups, record
What is the result? There are two problems that students are confronted with here. The person who is teaching may not be adequately qualified to teach. And graduate students engaged in overwhelming assignments cannot make progress on their own course work, advance in their candidacy, or dissertations.
So how can we best address this current challenge.
This is the moment where department chairs, deans, provosts need to step up. Specifically:
1. Provide adequate training for new graduate student teachers and/or pathways to ease into teaching
2. Understand the needs of students and the reasons for low enrollment. Perhaps ask the students which modality is preferred and/or what their schedules look like. Times have changed and people have full-time lives, and
3. Adequately compensate grad students and give them enough warning to prepare for academically and financially for the semester.
The downsides of commodifying Street Culture
/by Jeffrey Ian RossIn general, if someone or an organization like a business, can make a buck they will.
From the agricultural to utility sectors, this approach is the backbone of capitalism.
Recently, this phenomenon has been increasingly visible in the field, actions, and products produced in the realm of street culture (i.e., the beliefs, dispositions, ideologies, informal rules, practices, styles, symbols, and values associated with, adopted by, and engaged in by individuals and organizations that spend a disproportionate amount of time on the streets of large urban centers, Ross, 2018, p. 8).
From streetwear to street art, from street music to concert halls, and from ghettos and barrios to now gentrified parts of cities, there are an increasing number of items, situations/experiences, and places once derived (or originating) from, or that embody elements of street culture, but are then modified, marketed, and sold as products and services to interested consumers.
On the upside, this process of commodification (e.g., turning something into an object of value) can provide jobs, income, and opportunities for some individuals and communities.
And, I don’t have a beef with this approach as long as the original creators are
• acknowledged for their original ideas and hard work,
• fairly compensated for their ideas and work,
• treated fairly after their products and items make their way into the market place, and
• the products and services don’t lead to damaging externalities (i.e., killing the environment, etc.).
But that’s rarely the case.
Commodification of street culture usually results in a:
A. Distorting (or exaggerating) the original intent and meanings of the things and services emanating from street culture. In a world where honesty and authenticity are increasingly in short supply, these modifications can distort intended meanings. This includes a process that selected elements of the original products are overly simplified, reduced to tropes, or more specifically kitschified. Sometimes this process borders on cultural appropriation.
B. More importantly, the generative products and services usually do not appropriately compensate the original creators. And this is bad. Frequently there are no or minimal copyright, patent, and trademark protections for many creators and thus they can’t reap an economic benefit. Individuals and organizations who profit from activities just described are often referred to as culture vultures.
On the positive side, we are seeing scholars in different social science and fields examine the commodification of lots of processes, including selected elements of street culture, and this is great to see. More light, however, needs to be shed on this topic in order to better contextualize its’ dynamics and better guide its development.
Unanswered questions regarding the January 6, 2021 insurrection
/by Jeffrey Ian RossA year has passed since an angry mob of pro Trump supporters, believing that the 2020 election was stolen, stormed the United States Capitol, and broke through a cordon of underprepared and understaffed Capitol Police. For four hours, the mob attacked law enforcement, vandalized the building, its chambers and offices, stole documents, and terrorized members of Congress, staffers, and support personnel who were working there that day.
While former President Donald Trump, selected Republicans and Right Wing news media outlets and pundits have tried to downplay the events of that day, numerous institutions have responded, including Congress that established the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol.
In analyzing and reflecting upon the January 6 insurrection what are some of the most important unanswered questions (and possible solutions for seeking an answer) about this event?
I have eight of them, which I list below from least to most important.
8. What sorts of rehabilitative or deradicalization programs will be instituted in correctional facilities and offered or given to the insurrections who have been sentenced to prison time? Perhaps the Federal Bureau of Prisons can examine what worked or didn’t work in countries like Germany and Italy, that had a relatively recent history of right-wing extremists in their correctional facilities?
7. What kinds of new physical security (e.g., hardening of the target), policies and practices have been initiated in order to prevent a similar breach of the US Capitol in the future? On a related note, why is there a reluctance to design and build a physical barrier around Congress like there is in other countries?
6. What types of reforms have been introduced in the Capitol Police Department? We know that over the last year the former chief resigned and a new Chief has been selected, but news media reports that there is currently a staffing shortage of 400 officers. What efforts are underway to address this loss of personnel? And what sorts of new training have Capitol Police Officers been given over the past year?
5. What short and long term psychological effects have police (and national guard members) who were battling the insurrectionists on January 6th experienced? Yes, we have be treated to a litany of snippets of congressional testimony and interviews by the news media, but a more comprehensive analysis of the trauma that police experienced will be helpful to gauge damage and offer adequate emotional support.
4. What were both the psychological and structural reasons motivating the insurrectionists? Although we have lots of speculations produced by thoughtful people, and National Public Radio and the Chicago Project on Security & Threats, have compiled data bases, it does not appear that we currently have one or more researchers who have compiled a data base that includes more that demographic information on the participants. A more comprehensive data source may have to wait until more individuals are incarcerated and researchers interview a significant portion of them.
3. Why does it appear that so few people who participated in the event have been arrested, charged, and convicted? Is it because the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) (and other co-operating law enforcement agencies) are too slow, understaffed, overwhelmed, incompetent, focused on other important crimes, etc. or is it because the FBI is not able to identify the remaining participants, or is it because the agency is assembling more detailed background information on these individuals, including surveillance, before they initiate an arrest? Are the individuals who have not been arrested etc. more highly skilled than others at operating below the radar? If this is the case why has the FBI not told the public, in general terms, why they have not arrested more people?
2. What evidence is necessary for formal criminal charges to be laid against Republican members of Congress, members of the White House, and the former president in connection with their role in fomenting the violence? Perhaps this will be part of the insurrection commission’s work.
1. Why have none of the insurrectionists been charged with some of the more common political crimes like sedition or treason? Is it because these kinds of crimes are difficult to seek convictions for?
Hopefully, over time these questions will be answered in a satisfactory manner. Inevitably, this process will depend as much upon the resources that are available to researchers, as their respective motivations for engaging in this kind of work.
Photo Credit
Photographer: Blink O’fanaye
Title: Capitol Jan 6